The Work Of Shakespeare The Lamentable Tragedy Of Titus Andronicus

THE BOOK WAS
DRENCHED

UNIVERSAL

<0U 210642

cr

UNIVERSAL

LIBRARY

OSMANU UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

CaUNo.(f^2.' i ^ .Accession No. ^

This book should be returned on or before the date last mariccd below.

THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE
GENERAL EDITOR : W. J. CRAIG

TITUS

ANDRONICUS

THE WORKS

OF

SHAKESPEARE

THE LAMENTABLE TRAGEDY
OF TITUS ANDRONICUS

EDITED BY

H. BELLYSE BAILDON

MKTiiT KN AND CO.

36 ESSEX STREET: STRAND
LONDON

{904

INTRODUC'IIUN

Titus Andkonicus

CONTENTS

vii

INTRODUCTION

In discussing the authorship of a play attributed to
Shakespeare, especially one so much in dispute as Titus
AndronicuSy it is necessary to confine ourselves as far as
possible to views which have some reasonable amount of
probability, and not to spend strength and space in fighting
mere phantoms. It will not, for instance, be necessary to
deal here with the Baconian theory in general, because I
take it that the least sober Baconian would neither claim nor
wish to claim a play of this character, so startlingly replete
with horrors, for Francis, Lord Verulam. For the Baconian
theory, or the anti-Shakespearian theories generally are
founded on the supposed impossibility of Shakespeare
having had the learning, the knowledge, and the philosophic
cast of mind displayed in his greater plays ; whereas the
argument against his having written this particular play is
entirely founded on what we moderns conceive to be its faults.
The Baconian would think — if one dare guess at Baconian
thought — that the beauties of the play, which are really
great, would argue against Shakespeare ; while the crudities,
or indeed barbarities, it contains might well be set down
to the credit, or discredit, of this supposed Warwickshire
ignoramus, I may candidly say I am not a Baconian,
because in the first place there are to my mind such

X

INTRODUCTION

stupendous difficulties in the way of conceiving of Bacon as
the author, not only of his own mighty works, but also of
the most wonderful poetic and dramatic prodigies the world
possesses, that no amount of evidence, of the order we are
ever likely to gety could be for a moment set in the balance
against this tremendous antecedent improbability — I would
say impossibility — of this theory. So, if I were an advocate
of the Baconian theory, the first thing I should set out to
prove would be that Bacon did not write the works attri-
buted to him \ as they are the really insuperable obstacle
to my belief in his authorship of what we call “ Shake-
speare.^^ What I do believe regarding the generally
acknowledged plays of Shakespeare is that they are mainly
the work of a single master-mind, of one who not only was
one of the greatest, if not the greatesty of all Poets, but also
the Prince of Playwrights or Dramatists, and certainly the
greatest exponent and creator of human character in all
Literature.

I propose, in discussing the authorship of Titus
AndronicuSy while touching upon the question of char-
acteristic versification in its proper place, to begin with
what I consider the weightier matters of the Law,'' and
not with the “ mint, anise, and cumin " of pedantic criticism.

I shall first endeavour, as succinctly as possible, to give
those facts upon which, by common consent, all arguments
regarding the dates of the writing, performance, and publi-
cation of this play are founded. These facts have become
common property, and it will be unnecessary always to
mention here who it was who happened to be the very first
to draw attention to them.

The earliest edition of this play, as we know it, of which

INTRODUCTION

XI

any copy is in existence, is that of 1 600, which is known
as the First Quarto (Q i), and has the following title:
** The most lamentable Romaine Tragedy of Titus An-
dronicus, as it hath been playde by the Right Honourable
the Earle of Pembroke, the Earle of Darbie, the Earle of
Sussex, and the Lorde Chamberlaine theyr Servants, At
London, printed by J. R. for Edward White, 1600/’ On
this edition was founded the Second Quarto (Q 2) of 1 6 1 1 ,
printed also for Edward White, with the statement “ as has
sundry times been playde by the King's Maiestie’s Servants."
In the First Folio (F i), 1623, it appears under the same
title, and is printed between Coriolanus and Romeo and
Juliet. The variations between this version and F i and
F 2 are very few, with one very important exception, namely,
the addition of the whole of the second scene of Act III.,
in which Marcus kills a fly, and Titus, in real or affected
madness, makes his extraordinary commentary thereupon.

Now, what may we reasonably infer from these facts ?

First, that the play had been already some time in
existence in 1600, and had been extremely popular, having
been acted by all the various companies named, and later
on, according to the 1611 edition, by ‘‘His Maiestie’s
Servants." Secondly, that the printers and publishers, by
printing the play along with Shakespeare’s acknowledged
plays, intended at any rate to produce the impression that
the play was the work of Shakespeare.

But, having limited the date, on the one side, by showing
that it was already published and repeatedly performed in
1 600, let us look for earlier allusions to the piece in order
to ascertain how long it had then been in existence.

Now, according to Gerard Langbaine in his Account of

INTRODUCTION

xii

the English Dramatic Poets ^ 1691, Titus Andronicus was
first printed in 1594 in Quarto, and acted by the servants
of the “ Earls of Barbie, Pembroke, and Essex ” The
change from Essex in this edition to Sussex in that of
1600 marks the disgrace and fall of the former ambitious
noble, whose quarrel with Elizabeth began in 1598 and
ended with his execution in 1601. So we now know that
the play was already popular and well known in 1594, and
must have been written some little time before that. But
there is a still earlier entry in the Stationers' Registers, on
6th February 1593: ‘‘John Banter” (the publisher). “A
booke entitled A noble Roman Historye of Titus An-
dronicus,” with the addition, “ Entord also with him, by
warrant from Mr. Woodcock, the ballad thereof,” which is
probably the same as that given in the Percy Reliques.
This last, or rather earliest, edition seems closely connected
with an entry in Henslowe's Biary of a play, “ titus
and ondronicusl' as having been acted for the first time by
“ the Earle of Essex, his men,” on 23rd January 1593. A
still earlier entry in this Biary mentions a play, “ Titus
and Vespasia]' as being new in 1591.

It might now be thought that we now pretty well
determined the date of the first performance, if not the com-
position of the play. But there is a curious passage in
Ben Jonson's Introduction to Bartholomew Fair^ first pro-
duced in 1614, which runs thus: “ He that will swear that
Jeronimo or Andronicus are the best plays yet shall pass
unexcepted at here, as a man whose judgment shows it is
constant and has stood still these twenty-five or thirty
years.” If we take either of these numbers literally it
would throw back the date of the earliest performances of

INTRODUCTION

Xlll

these two plays, namely, The Spanish Tragedy ^ now almost
universally attributed to Thomas Kyd, and AndronicuSy to
1589 and 1584 respectively. But I do not think that
the statement should be taken too literally. Many people
are extremely vague in their notions of the lapse of time,
and loose in their statements regarding it. Ben Jonson,
with characteristic unamiability, is sneering at those old
plays, and would not scruple somewhat to exaggerate their
antiquity ; so I think we may safely take the shorter rather
than the longer term as being nearest the mark.^ The first
mention of Kyd’s Tragedy being acted is in IS9I by
“ Lord Strange's men " ; and the first dated edition of the
Spanish Tragedy is the Quarto of 1594 (London, Edward
White), as preserved in the University of Gottingen. Of
course this does not fix the date of composition ; but as in
those days there was a continuous demand for new plays, it
is not likely that authors like Kyd and Shakespeare let their
MSS. lie long in their desks. We may, I think, therefore
conclude that Andronicus at any rate was written between
1589 and 1593, that is, when Shakespeare was about
twenty-five years old and upwards ; and this would still
make this play, as we might expect from its crudity, one
of Shakespeare’s earliest efforts in tragedy, in the “ Tragedy
of Blood,” as Mr. J. A. Symonds calls the earlier school of
Elizabethan tragedy in which Shakespeare was nurtured, and
out of which he triumphantly emerged in his later works, not
so much in point of theme and incident — for all tragedies
are Tragedies of Blood — but in that elevation of treatment
which lifts the horrible from the sensational to the sublime.

^ A very probable solution of this apparent difficulty is that Jonson is really
referring to older versions of the drama and not to Shakespeare’s.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Charles Crawford, in an ingenious and learned
article (^Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare- Gesellschafty
1 900, p. 1 09), makes a valiant attempt to fix definitely the
exact time of the writing of Titus Andronicus^ as being
between 26th June 1593 and January 1594, on account of
alleged imitations on Shakespeare^s part of Peek’s Honour
of the Garter^ published at the former date. I must
honestly confess, with profound admiration of Mr. Craw-
ford’s erudition, that I think his point, in Scottish legal
phrase, “ non-proven.” The parallelisms quoted are not to
my mind, though curious, close enough to establish a case
of imitation on Shakespeare’s part. His most important
parallelisms really amount to little more than phrases,
which might have come from some common source, or
might be independently invented. A word like “ re-salute ”
is not so unique in kind or difficult of coinage to prove
imitation on one side or other. The parallel passages about
the House of Fame have an obviously common source in
Chaucer’s poem of that name, and the common use of the
name Enceladus is utterly insufficient to prove anything
whatever. The word “ palliament,” a long white cloak, is,
no doubt, found only in this play in Peek’s Honour of the
Garter^ lines 91-2. The best point Mr. Crawford makes
is the close likeness between —

Out (Of Oblivion^s reach or Envy*s shot,

(Garter^ lines 409, 410.)

and the lines of Aaron —

Safe out of Fortune’s shot, and sits aloft
Advanced above pale Envy’s threat’ning reach.

{Titus Andronicus^ II. i. 2, 3.)

The resemblance here is remarkably close ; at the same

INTRODUCTION

XV

time there are two other possibilities besides that of copying
on Shakespeare's side. First, both poets may have got the
idea from some common source, and secondly, the same
image may have occurred to each independently ; for surely
the idea of any person being out of reach and shot is not
so recondite but that it might occur to two accomplished
poets without one imitating the other. Mr. Crawford may
be right on this point, but I do not think his argument
absolutely conclusive ; and I am not inclined to accept
it, unless it is absolutely conclusive, because it would make
Titus Andromcus a later work than Midsummer Nights
Dream^ which I think, in view of the greater ease and
confidence of Shakespeare's manner in the Drea^n^ extremely
unlikely, as I point out in comparing the two pieces later on.
But, of course, Mr. Sidney Lee may be right in attributing
the writing of the Dream to the winter of 1595.

An important matter, and one somewhat difficult to
decide is, whether we are to regard the plays given as
Titus and Andronicus and Titus and Vespasian as being
(i) one and the same play, or (2) two distinct plays; and
then again, whether in either they are early dramatic
versions of the story by unknown authors, which Shake-
speare made use of in his Titus Andronicus^ or crude and
early attempts by Shakespeare himself. Now, it is im-
possible to give the arguments in full on so complicated a
matter, so I must content myself with stating the conclu-
sions I have come to after reading everything of import-
ance I can find to read on this subject. But before doing
so, I would just indicate the lines of argument which have
been used in coming to the following conclusions.

We have not got any copy of either of these old plays ;

XVI

INTRODUCTION

but we have German and Dutch versions of the drama,
which to all appearance, although of later date than
Shakespeare’s play, are not founded upon it, but on some
earlier and cruder version or versions.

The latest and most thorough examination of the
Dutch and German versions of the story and the best
comparison of them with Shakespeare’s play are by Mr.
Harold M. W. Fuller in the ‘‘ Publications of the Modern
Languages Association of America,” vol. xvi. No. i, to
which is added a valuable note, by Professor G. P. Baker of
Harvard, on the same subject.

Both Mr. Fuller and Professor Baker come to two
interesting and important conclusions, namely, (i) that
the Dutch and German versions are founded on two different
English versions, brought over by different English com-
panies ; (2) that neither of these can have been Shake-
speare’s play as we have it. This latter point they have, I
think, amply and absolutely established, and I am prepared
to accept this conclusion. It is highly important, because
it practically enables us to know what alterations Shake-
speare made in the story as it existed in dramatic form
before his time ; and these, as we shall see later, were
neither few nor unimportant, but on the other hand both
weighty and characteristic. The other conclusion, that the
German and Dutch versions were founded on different
versions of the piece, and that these were the two plays
which we know as Titus and Andronicus and Titus and
Vespasian respectively, is hardly so clearly made out, and
is of less importance.

One of the reasons that we find it so difficult to get at
the original source of this gruesome story, is that it seems

INTRODUCTION

xvii

to be a conglomerate of at least two revolting themes,
which were nevertheless extremely popular in Europe and
England long before Shakespeare’s time. The one theme
may be called ‘‘The Wicked Moor” theme, in which we
have Murder and Rape committed by a Moor out of revenge
and pure malice ; and the other, which we may call the
“ White Lady and Moor ” theme, in which the main idea
is the lustful intrigue between a white lady, generally a
queen, and a black slave. In the story as developed by
Shakespeare, and to a less extent in the earlier version, we
have this combined with what we may call the political
elements in the story, i.e, the relations of Titus to the
Emperor. This complication is just what Shakespeare
loved, and invented when it was not already present in the
original story. In most of his tragedies and comedies Shake-
speare combined two stories, often from quite different sources,
and perhaps nothing is more characteristic of his genius
than this power of effective and ingenious combination of
two hitherto distinct themes. It gave him also oppor-
tunities for that subtle discrimination of similar characters
in which he seems, so to speak, to have revelled. King
Lear is one of the best examples of this, when he has Lear
and Gloucester, Cordelia and Edgar, Edmund and Regan
and Goneril in pairs or groups, in which strong resemblances
are mingled with subtle differences. The plot of Titus
was in the earlier versions nearly sufficiently complex for
Shakespeare’s taste, but he creates the part of Alarbus,
partly to give some justification to Tamora’s hatred of the
Andronici, and partly to balance Lavinia as an innocent
victim on the other side.

But the story, as it came to Shakespeare in these older
b

xviii INTRODUCTION

plays, or in the ballad, was already, as above remarked,
probably a combination of at least two themes which had
originally been separate.

As E. Roeppe [Eng. Studien, vol. xvi. 365, etc.) shows,
there were numerous early versions of the “ cruel Moor ”
theme, as, for instance, (i) a Latin version by Pontano;
(2) a translation or adaptation of this by Bandello ; (3) a
French version by Belleforest ; (4) an English ballad
(Roxburgh Ballads, vol. ii. p. 339, etc.) ; and ($) a Spanish
version. In the same way, the “ Lady and the Blacka-
moor ” theme, as shown by Professor Koeppel ^ and others,
existed in many versions, in several languages. There is
therefore no lack of “ sources ” for the story as we have it
in Shakespeare ; but whether Shakespeare took his plot
straight from an earlier dramatic version, or read the com-
ponent themes in Bandello or Belleforest, or in English
ballad form, it is probably now impossible to ascertain, and
docs not really matter very much.

But in anything we have hitherto said, no direct and
conclusive evidence of Shaku.peare’s authorship has been
brought forward, though the printing of this play between
two of Shakespeare’s universally acknowledged plays and
in the same volume with others makes the inference that
it was his very probable. But now we come to a piece of
direct evidence which appears to me actually irrefragable,
and whose brushing aside by those who wish to disprove
Shakespeare’s authorship seems to me without the slightest
justification. Francis Meres, a contemporary and acquaint-
ance, if not intimate friend of, Shakespeare’s, writes in 1598,
apropos of the excellence of Shakespeare’s tragedies in
1 Englische Studten^ xvi. p. 365, etc.

INTRODUCTION

XIX

English, as compared with those of Seneca in Latin,
“ witness for tragedy, his Richard IL^ Richard IIL^ Henry
IV.y King John^ Titus Andronicus^ and his Romeo and
Julietr Only a man with the keenest interest in matters
literary and dramatic would have taken up such a theme at
all ; and we know that Meres was so interested. He wrote
not only within a few years of the first performances of
these plays, but while they were still highly popular and
frequently acted, and was during Shakespeare's own life-
time in intimate contact, if not with Shakespeare himself
(though Shakespeare read his MS. Sonnets to him), at
least, with many of Shakespeare’s actor and author con-
temporaries, both friends and enemies, or rivals, like Ben
Jonson. The folly of discarding this direct evidence, as
all who maintain that Shakespeare had little or no part in
the authorship of this play must do, is perhaps best illus-
trated by taking a modern parallel. Suppose that the
popular dramas of to-day fell into the same neglect half a
century or a century hence, as the Elizabethan plays did
about that period after they were written, and that, when
interest revived again in them, the question arose as to who
was the author of Quality Street \ and, again, supposing an
article by some contemporary author of repute was found in
which Quality Street was mentioned along with others of
Mr. Barrie’s plays as being by him, would any sane twentieth
or twenty-first century critic brush that evidence aside as
Meres’ evidence has been brushed aside by Malone and
others? No amount of discrepancies in style between
“ Walker London]' “ The Little Minister]' and ‘‘ Quality Street"
would be entitled to weigh for a moment against this
piece of direct contemporary evidence. And yet Meres*

XX

INTRODUCTION

evidence is contemptuously swept aside, not only by such
one-sided and prejudiced persons as Malone, Fleay, etc.,
but by cautious and, in other cases, sound and careful critics
like Mr. Sidney Lee and Hallam. Now, I say that the
true Shakespearian, who believes that Shakespeare was the
author of the great masterpieces attributed to him, is deliber-
ately delivering himself over gagged and bound into the
hands of the anti-Shakespearians the moment he begins to
treat such a strong and clear piece of contemporary evi-
dence with contempt. For it is on contempt for con-
temporary evidence and opinion that the whole anti-
Shakespearian case is founded For that Shakespeare was
commonly regarded as the author of those masterpieces
by all his contemporaries and all their successors for
generations is absolutely indubitable. But the moment
you allow that this consensus of opinion and all direct
contemporary testimony is to be disregarded, you open the
floodgates for the entrance of all sorts of possible or im-
possible theories as to the authorship of Shakespeare’s or
anybody else’s works. For, if the friends, enemies and
other contemporaries do not know what a man has written,
you may depend upon it, nobody ever will know^ and any
man’s opinion will be as good as another, or as the Irishman
said, much better.” How easy will it be in the course of
another century or so to prove that Scott could not have
written the Waver ley Novels, and that they were written by
Coleridge, by Adam Smith, by George III., or by a certain
“ private author ” !

I have never seen it remarked, though the fact
seems obvious enough, that the scepticism with regard to
Shakespeare’s authorship of the works at one time universally

INTRODUCTION

XXI

attributed to him, is part of that general sceptical movement
or wave which has landed us first in the so-called “ Higher
Criticism ” in matters of Religion, and finally in Agnosticism
itself. The Baconian and the anti-Shakespearian, whether
they know it or no, are merely particular cases of critical
“ Agnosticism.” Now, the Higher Criticism begins with the
disregard of Tradition, and the assumption that in the days
in which the various books of the Bible were written or
accepted as canonical and as being by the persons whose
names became attached to them, mankind had not the
most rudimentary critical faculty and believed everything
that was told them indiscriminately. The human mind
does not change so much as all that, and the world has
always been made up of persons credulous and persons
sceptical, and perhaps still more of people as sceptical in
one direction as they were credulous in another. All so-
called scepticism has always been based on a kind of conceit,
and is the work of persons with whom wisdom was born.
Surely the world might by this time accept Kant^s great
proof of the futility of Pure Reason ! It is, at any rate, the
use of an almost d priori form of reasoning, which leads to
the sceptical, or, if you like, “ higher critical ” views on the
Bible, Shakespeare, or any other subject whatever. The
position of the man who declines to believe that the Strat-
ford Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him is
precisely the same as that of Hume on Miracles. Hume
says in effect, which is of course a complete begging of the
question, that no amount of evidence could establish a
miracle. For his statement, that it is always more
probable that the evidence should be false than the miracle
true, is only a sophistical variant on the above. So with

XXll

INTRODUCTION

the anti-Shakespearian generally. His position is prac-
tically this, that no amount of evidence, such as it is
possible for his opponent to bring forward, can convince
him that Shakespeare wrote these plays. In other words,
the antecedent improbability of Shakespeare being able to
write them is greater, in his view, than the probability that
his contemporaries were right in believing that he did. The
solution of both difficulties is the same, the occurrence of
the extraordinary, which in one case we call “ miracle,” and
in the other “ genius.”

I have written thus fully on this point because here lies
the key of the whole controversy, and the moment that is
lost, all is lost. For if, as Mr. Sidney Lee asserts. Meres’
statement is to be disregarded, then I say he can take his
stand on no piece of contemporary evidence whatsoever.
Abandon Meres and Shakespeare’s authorship (or editor-
ship) of Titus AndronicuSy and you surrender the Thermo-
pylae of the pro-Shakespearian position. Now, upon what
basis is this scepticism regarding Shakespeare’s authorship
founded ? It is founded upon the remark of one Ravens-
croft, a clumsy and irresponsible patcher of Titus AndronicuSy
about seventy years after Shakespeare’s death. “ I have been
told,” writes Ravenscroft, “by some anciently conversant
with the stage, that it was not originally his (Shakespeare’s),
but brought by a private author to be acted, and he only
gave some master touches to one or two of the principal
characters.” Anything feebler in the way of evidence
cannot be conceived ; for there could be no one living
seventy-one years after Shakespeare’s death whose evidence
could be in the least degree relied on as being first hand ;
it could only be regarded as a piece of green-room gossip.

INTRODUCTION xxiii

But Ravenscroft was not only without first-hand evidence ;
he is manifestly interested and unprincipled. On him
Langbaine (in his Account of the English Dramatic Poets ^
1691) writes: “Though he would imitate the silk-worm
that spins its web from its own bowels, yet I shall make him
appear like a leech, that lives on the blood of men,” and he
goes on to infer that Ravenscroft got up this story to exalt
his own merit in having altered the piece. But the final
condemnation of Ravenscroft and vindication of Shake-
speare’s generally reputed authorship, through something
very like a century, lies in the fact that Ravenscroft
suppressed the original Prologue which runs thus —

To-day the poet does not fear your rage,

Shakespeare, by him revived now treads the stage ;

Under his sacred laurels he sits down,

Safe from the blast of any critic’s frown.

Like other poets, he’ll not proudly scorn

To own that he but winnowed Shakespeare’s corn.

How Malone can have been so disingenuous as to suppress
this bit of evidence, when accepting Ravenscroft’s worthless
and self-interested gossip, certainly (in Mr. Gladstone’s
phrase) “ passes the wit of man ” to comprehend. Malone
and Ravenscroft stand convicted of a suppressio veri of
the first magnitude. This conviction we owe to Charles
Knight’s admirable “ Notice on the Authenticity of Titus
Andronicus in his edition of Shakespeare.

The question now arises. What possible motive could
Malone have in acting so disingenuously by the evidences ?
The answer is that there are two possible motives for such
conduct, self-interest, and prejudice. Ravenscroft’s was the
first, and Malone’s the second.

The prejudice that has affected Malone, Fleay, Hallam,

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

and all those who follow them, is as creditable to their
hearts as it is discreditable to their judgments. They
found the play very repulsive, as it is to every refined
modern reader, and they cried out in their hearts, “ O this
cannot be by our beloved and gentle Shakespeare, we must
set about proving that it is not his.'' Now this is very
nice and kind of them, and deserves the applause and
admiration of all the well-intentioned namby-pambyism of
this or any age. But the great and virile literature of this
or any great language is not “ namby-pamby," and Eliza-
bethan literature least of all. No one can criticise it sanely
from this point of view. For, least of all, is Shakespeare
himself namby-pamby; and anything more illogical than
to argue, as these gentlemen do, that the author of the
terrible scene between Arthur and Hubert in King John^
of the murders of Duncan, Banquo, Richard II., and
Clarence, of the slaughter of young Rutland and Edward,
and young Macduff, of the holocausts of victims in that and
every tragedy, and perhaps worst of all the revolting
gouging of Gloucester's eyes in Lear^ could never have had,
in the crudest days of his youth, aught to do with Titus
AndronicuSy is about as absurd as it is possible for anything
to be.

What, then, are the elements in Titus Andronicus which
to modern taste are specially revolting; for as revolting' they
were not regarded, apparently, by Shakespeare's own con-
temporaries either in England, Germany, or Holland ?
Revolting to us they most unquestionably are, but even
Shakespeare's genius could hardly be expected, in planning
his first tragedy, to anticipate refined, or over-refined, modern
feeling. As a young author making his first essay in

INTRODUCTION

XXV

tragedy, Shakespeare would naturally choose a theme
which would find favour with an Elizabethan audience, and,
as we shall see, nothing secured that, at the time he must
have written Titus AndronicuSy more easily than a plentiful
supply of horrors, just as the sensation novel, the “ penny
dreadful,” and the “ shilling shocker ” attract the multitude
now. The fact that one form of literature is to be read
and the other acted makes 'really much less difference than
we are apt to imagine, especially when we consider the
primitive appliances of the Elizabethan stage. Fancy
Hamlet being played with nothing but the following
‘‘ properties,” as quoted by Mr. Appleton Morgan from
the stage directions to the First Folio : “ A recorder,
book, two framed portraits, flowers, spades and mattocks,
tombstones, skulls, handkerchief, cups, decanters ” ; or
Julius Caesar with ** A scroll, wine in decanters, cups,
tapers, a couch ” ! For the audiences in those days,
with no artificial light, no attempt at scenery, and a
stage in which the audience mingled with the actors, there
can have been none of that “ realistic illusion,” if the phrase
may be allowed, which our modern extremely realistic
presentments are apt to produce. No one among these
audiences can have been even momentarily under the
illusion that the actor playing Gloucester had his eyes
really gouged out, or that there was any real danger to
Arthur’s eyes from the iron bodkins or rods ” — probably
cold, or with a dab of red paint on them — with which
Hubert menaced him. In fact, the stage of that day was,
in point of realism, only one remove above the Puppet-
show ; and it would be hardly more absurd to con-
demn as revolting the conduct of that notable murderer

XXVI

INTRODUCTION

and criminal, Punchy as to condemn Titus Andronicus on
the same plea. If this modern namby-pambyism is to have
its way, we should ostracise half of Stevenson’s works, and
utterly condemn the horrible cannibalistic narrative in the
Yam of the Nancy Bell\ What then, we ask again,
were the incidents in Titus Andronicus likely, as rendered
on the stage of the Globe Theatre, to revolt an Elizabethan
audience ?

No doubt the incidents which we feel to be revolting in
this play are the ravishment and mutilation of Lavinia, the
mutilation of Titus and his revenge in cutting the throats
of the ravishers and making pastry of their bones and
blood. These things are all extremely gruesome, but I
fear this is no proof whatever that Shakespeare, when once
embarked on such a plot, would excise them or indeed
make any serious attempt to mitigate them. If we had
the real “ source ” from which Shakespeare took this plot,
if it be not the ballad itself,^ we should certainly find all
those horrors in the original version ; and an inexperienced
author would, even if he wished (which is doubtful), be
afraid to take any liberties with a plot which was certainly,
in a cruder form, already familiar to his audience. Had he
ventured on such a course, “ the groundlings,” at any rate,
would, in their disappointment, have hissed the piece off the
stage, although the merely sanguinary incidents and the
cannibalism would not be very impressive as then ren-
dered, with a pair of well-worn ‘‘ property ” heads and
a few bandages and scraps of red cloth, not to speak of

^ It does not seem to have been generally observed that the story of Lavinia
was familiar to Chaucer. See The Legend of Good IVomen, line 2ii earlier ver-
sion, 257 later version (Skeat’s Siudenfs Chaucer).

INTRODUCTION

XX vu

the pie (coffin) from the nearest cook-shop, which the
hungry “ supers would finish off whfen the play was over.

With regard to the introduction of Rape as a subject
for the stage, Mr. F. G. Fleay {Chronicle History of the Life
and Work of Shakespeare) writes : “ The introduction of
rape as a subject for the stage would be sufficient to
disprove Shakespeare’s authorship.” A more ridiculous
and fatuous remark it would be impossible to find in
the annals of criticism. Did Mr. Fleay forget that about
the time this play must have been written Shakespeare had
it in his mind, as we see from the play itself, to devote his
utmost poetic powers — which he then regarded with infinitely
greater reverence than he did his dramatic powers — to
writing The Rape of Lucj'ecel If Shakespeare thought this
subject fit for a poem, which was to gain him the favour of
the highest in the land, he could have no possible scruple
against treating such a subject dramatically ; and when we
recall his tremendous Sonnet on “ Lust,” and the theme of
his Venus and Adonis, which is the very revolting one of a
woman (though a goddess) thrusting her favours on a man,
we see the absolute absurdity of Fleay’s proposition. The
fact is that Shakespeare’s mind, with all its elevation, was
much fascinated by what we would now call “ sex-problems,”
and although he does not again introduce rape, he has the
equally “ revolting ” theme of seduction, or attempted
seduction, frequently ; and in Hamlet we have what was then
regarded as incest. It is not, indeed, by his themes that
Shakespeare or any great author is to be judged ; it is by
his treatment of them. What Shakespeare worked for was
a “ moral resultant,” and if anyone dare allege that any
play of Shakespeare’s, properly studied, leaves him or her

INTRODUCTION

xxviii

worse than it found them, I will undertake to say that the
fault is with the reader. In his tragedies especially, when
we reach the denouement and see the havoc worked by
human weakness and passion, we are certainly in no mood
to condone such weakness, or to set about indulging these
destructive passions. What impure woman does not quail
under Hamlet's reproof of Gertrude, or feel abashed in the
presence of Isabel and Imogen ? There are no sermons
that ever have been or will be preached that drive home
the evilness of evil and the criminality of weakness like
these magnificent dramatic homilies. Even in Titus An-
dronicuSy what are our final feelings ? Not exultation in the
success of Titus' terrible, and, in a sense, just revenge, but
a conviction that Cruelty, Lust, and even Revenge are
hideous, loathsome, and repulsive to the last degree ; and
this feeling, which we have, amidst all our horror, stamps
the play as essentially Shakespearian in its general outlines
and conception. And that is all, or nearly all, that will be
here maintained ; not that every word and line, not even
every scene is the original work of Shakespeare, but that his
genius and character is impressed in immature but unmis-
takable manner on the drama as a whole.

For the idea that the plot of the play is a piece of pure
invention on the part of Shakespeare or any other Eliza-
bethan dramatist is, of course, quite out of the question,
because it was quite beside the practice of these dramatists,
and most of all of Shakespeare himself, to be at the trouble
of inventing a fresh plot, when they had so many ready to
their hand, and when it was considered no plagiarism or
declension from originality to make the freest use of old
material wherever they found it.

INTRODUCTION

XXIX

We have now, I think, touched upon all the acknow-
ledged facts regarding the play in question, which throw
any real light on its authorship from without ; and it seems
we are now for the first time in a position to apply ourselves
to the play itself, and to see what further light we can gain
by a critical examination of the text.

Whenever we ask ourselves what is the first essential
to the making of a great and perennially interesting author
of fiction in its widest sense, whether the form be narrative
or dramatic, prose or verse, we are always driven back on
the one answer, that it is what we are pleased to call
‘‘ creative power,” and in particular the power of creating
characters. Gradually, as time goes on, these creators^
poets^ makers, emerge from the multitude of lesser writers,
however accomplished, and take their stations at an altitude
that the others can never attain. Stars and lamps are very
alike sometimes, but no lamp can for long persuade us that
it has the altitude of the Plough or the Pole-star. What
this creative power consists in, this power of making
imaginative work not only beautiful, or true, or interesting,
but actually alive, can no more be stated in words than
biologist, chemist, and physicist, or all three together,
can really tell us what that, which we call Life, really is.
We know only in both cases by results.^

Of this life-giving power, not to use any disputable
instance, we have certainly three great exemplars in our
literature — Chaucer, especially in his Prologue, Shakespeare,

^ Only the other day a pet kitten was playing in my garden, exuberant with
life from whiskers to tail. Then a strange dog, a deft shake in the air, and a
weeping domestic brings me a piece of limp fur with a touch of blood, and glazing
eyes. Just as great in literature, and as mysterious, is the difference between the
living and the dead.

XXX

INTRODUCTION

and Scott. Five centuries have not weakened the pulse of
life in one of the Canterbury Pilgrims, and the grave
Knight and the gay Squire, the genteel Prioress and the
vulgar Wife of Bath are living as when their palfreys raised
the dust on Kentish roads. While there are some classes
of Scott’s characters whose original ancEmia has proved
fatal to them, there are others whose cheeks are still fresh
and ruddy as winter apples. But high above these, almost
in a world of their own, survive in imperishable beauty and
vitality the creations of Shakespeare. Here and there, but
only here and there, do we find a character looking a little
sick and ghostly among the rest, and this almost entirely
in his earlier plays. In Love's Labour's Lost we have little
more than graceful pen-and-ink sketches and first studies
for what were to be his great creations later on ; and, in
like manner, in Titus Andronicus we find a series of
powerful, and even exaggerated, studies for the great char-
acters that peopled his later tragedies. Already in this
play the author shows a marvellous power, one of those
absolutely essential in the creation of character in fiction,
that of discriminating between two characters apparently
extremely alike. This power has been pointed out as
characteristic of Shakespeare ; but I do not remember that
anyone has noticed that the two sons of Tamora are a
marvellous example of this. At first sight nothing would
seem more difficult than to discriminate between these two
utter ruffians. But Shakespeare has done it, and he has done
it in a peculiarly bold way. The distinction is this, that
he makes Chiron, the younger, at once the more sentimental
and the more ruthless. At first it comes on us with a
kind of shock when we find the sentimentalist, who was

INTRODUCTION

XXXI

going to sacrifice everything to win Lavinia, suddenly
accepting with gusto the horrible proposition of Aaron and
his brother. But we have observed human nature but ill
if we do not recognise the profound truth of Shakespeare’s
psychology here, in that sentiment is often but a thin mask
worn by the sentimentalist to disguise from himself and
others a pitiless lust. How many other dramatists, if any,
would have ventured on such a stroke and torn the dis-
guise aside so ruthlessly? It is certainly a psychologic
subtlety, far beyond the reach of Kyd, and probably even
of Greene or Marlowe.

It is a natural transition from these two Bashi-bazouks
to their worthy mother, to whose codding spirit,” as
Aaron, who ought to know, says, their lustful natures were
due.

My own feeling is that up to the scene when she tries
to personate Revenge, Tamora’s character is magnificently
handled. Lustful and ferocious as she is, she has a quality
of greatness, such as perhaps only Shakespeare can impart
to his wicked women. Her first appearance and her appeal
to Titus is as queenly and noble as anything in the range
of dramatic art. And here Shakespeare is careful, and this
also is characteristic, to give her an excuse for, if not a
justification of, her subsequent actions. The barbarous
treatment of her eldest born son, Alarbus, was enough to
rouse in her strong and passionate nature a thirst for an
adequate and terrible revenge. But, with that wonderful
wit which characterises her, and which deserts her only
at the last critical moment, when she presumes too much
upon it, she perceives that she must, in the first instance,
dissemble, and lure Titus and his family into a false sense of

XXXll

INTRODUCTION

security. A woman of mature beauty, an adept at intrigue,
she knows, almost at a glance, how to fascinate the weak
and voluptuous Saturninus, and how to work on his jealousy
and fear of Titus. Tamora, like all Shakespeare’s heroines,
good or bad, largely dominates the play ; for even Aaron
is often merely her emissary and agent, carrying out her
terrific programme with malicious pleasure no doubt, but
with no other advantage to himself. Tamora, doubtless, is
the slave of her passion for Aaron, or rather, like the
Semiramis to whom she was compared in the play, or
Catherine of Russia, the slave of her own insatiable desires.
This passion and those desires brought about her downfall.
On her character the author lavishes all his powers, as, with
the exception of Aaron’s soliloquy at the opening of
the second Act, all the finest pieces of poetic rhetoric
are assigned to her. Nor does Tamora, with all her wicked-
ness and cruelty and lust, ever cease to be the woman.
In the scene where Lavinia appeals to her to save her by
death from the violence of her ruffian sons, it is obvious that
Tamora is not sure of herself, and therefore she implores
her sons not to let Lavinia speak, and hurries them away.
She feels, I take it, the zvoman in her revolt, as it often will
do, to the side of her own sex. Women are proverbially
hard on each other, and yet sometimes, quite unexpectedly,
they make common cause against man. For there is
always a certain feeling of solidarity within the sexes, and in
spite of the strong forces acting against it, it often works in
a surprising manner. Even in the Revenge scenes, in which
Tamora appears at such disadvantage, it may be that the
author intentionally illustrated, what I believe to be true,
that in a matter of plot and counterplot a man, fairly on

INTRODUCTION

xxxm

his guard and on his mettle, will mine deeper than the
woman, just as Titus did ; for his carefully thought-out
feigning of madness quite deceived Tamora and made her
cunning of no avail.

But, further, we have in Tamora an early study for
at least two of Shakespeare’s great women characters —
Lady Macbeth and Cleopatra. Tamora’s relation to
Saturninus and her hypocrisy to Titus are extremely
like Lady Macbeth’s instigation of her husband and her
hypocrisy to Duncan. In Cleopatra, again, we have, in a
less gross form perhaps, a woman in whom sexual desire is
the ruling passion. And in Lady Macbeth we have the
same view of the ability of the sexes, for, ready as Lady
Macbeth is in planning the single murder of Duncan, she
falls into the background as soon as Macbeth embarks in the
more comprehensive scheme of crime which the first mur-
der involved ; and so one of the great elements of pathos
in Lady Macbeth’s position is that she is no longer any
use to her husband, and only a source of danger to him,
through her sleep-walking, and it is characteristic of Shake-
speare’s maturer treatment that he does not let us see
Lady Macbeth defeated and humiliated, as we see Tamora,
at the end of our play.

It is now time we turned to one of the other leading
characters in the drama, who is all along the antagonist,
and eventually, in a sad and terrible sense, the successful
antagonist of Tamora, Titus Andronicus himself.

It seems nearly incredible that most of Shakespeare’s
critics and commentators have missed the seemingly obvious
fact that in the character of Titus we have strong sug-
gestions of no less than three of the great male characters

XXXIV

INTRODUCTION

in his acknowledged masterpieces, namely, Lear, Coriolanus,
and Hamlet The resemblance to Lear is perhaps the most
complete and significant. The faults of Titus’ character
and that of his family, from which, as in Lea7% the whole
tragic situation arises, are identical. Just as Lear fancied
he had a true and disinterested love for his children, so did
Titus ; and yet in the very opening of both plays their
mistake is at once demonstrated ; for full as he (Titus) is of
grief for his dead sons and pride in the living, and full as
he appears to be of tenderness to Lavinia, the moment
any of these thwart him in the least, all these kind feelings
are lost in his rage at being thwarted ; and before he has
been long on the stage he has deprived Lavinia of her
affianced lover — almost her husband — and has murdered
with his own hand his son Mutius. But the resemblance
does not end here. Titus has the Empire of Rome within
his grasp, and, like Lear, feeling some of the languor of
age coming over him, he declines, as Lear wishes to resign,
the burden of power. But they both deceive themselves ;
they do not wish really to resign their power itself, but
merely its burdens and toils. Lear pictures himself loved,
honoured and revered, and still consulted and obeyed by
his children. Titus, thinking he had earned the deathless
gratitude of Saturninus, seems really to have expected to
retain much of his honour and influence, and to be regarded
as sort of guardian or grand vizier to the Emperor of his
own creation. He, like Lear, is bitterly disappointed ; for
he finds himself suddenly neglected and of no account.
He thus, like Lear, by his own acts, by his cruelty towards
Alarbus, his injustice to Lavinia and Bassianus, and his
murder of his son, furnishes all the elements in the ensuing

INTRODUCTION

XXXV

tragedy; and as Lear and Cordelia are intimately asso-
ciated in the final and terrible results, so, in cruder fashion,
are Titus and Lavinia.

The resemblance to Coriolanus is yet more simple and
obvious. We have the same military and warlike quali-
ties, the same immense pride, the same inordinate claim
on the gratitude of his countrymen, the same almost
traitorous readiness to turn against them when they offend
him.

In regard to his real or feigned madness, Titus has
points of resemblance to both Lear and Hamlet. That
his madness, like Hamlet's, was mainly assumed, I think
there can be no doubt ; for whenever he chooses he is not only
sane, but capable. But I think also that his troubles are
meant to bring him to the border of real madness^ and just as
a man partially drunk can play complete drunkenness more
easily than a perfectly sober man, so a man on the verge
of madness will probably feign insanity more naturally
than one who is perfectly sane. Lear’s madness is, of
course, not feigned, but that of Edgar in the same play is.

Shakespeare, indeed, is very fond of repeating himself up
to a certain point, and it is just beyond that point when
his extraordinary power of variation on like themes comes
in. There are, indeed, few characters in Shakespeare which
could not, at least, be duplicated from his works, and yet
no two are the same, any more than two sisters or two
brothers are the same person. It seems as if here also he
revels in his unequalled power of discrimination. But to
Professor Schroer, I think, we owe the first full and clear
statement of the remarkable typical resemblances of so
many of Shakespeare’s characters. No doubt all characters

XXXVl

INTRODUCTION

in drama have a tendency to run in types, but Shake-
speare’s peculiarity is his extreme subtlety of discrimina-
tion, and the ingenuity with which he combines more than
one type in the same person, as already pointed out in
the cases of Titus and Tamora.

But let no one run away with the idea that I am
holding up Titus himself as being equal in either concep-
tion or execution to the other masterpieces of charac-
terisation with which I have compared him : he is only a
first study out of which the others were developed. With
the general conception of the character there is no fault to
find, but with the execution there is a good deal, for either
Shakespeare had not got over the influence of a false style
which piled up and elaborated images and classical allusions,
which embarrassed rather than assisted the effective ex-
pression of the emotions and thought, or he has carried
forward a good deal of defective matter from some older
version of the piece. Perhaps, indeed, we are safer to say
that we have both these causes in operation to render the
play inferior to Shakespeare’s maturer work.

I may mention at this point that Mr. Charles Craw-
ford, author of “ The Authorship of Arden of Feversham ”
{Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, 1903), has
very kindly furnished me with a remarkable collection of
parallel passages between Titus And^'onicus and other plays
of Shakespeare, which go absolutely to prove, if any argu-
ment of that kind can, the Shakespearian authorship of
this drama. Mr. Crawford’s very striking parallelisms are
too numerous and lengthy to be given in detail here. But
it is very gratifying to me to find so thorough a scholar
of Elizabethan literature working out from a somewhat

INTRODUCTION

XXXVll

different point of view, and a different method, nearly the
same conclusion which I am endeavouring to establish in
this Introduction.

But we must return to our examination of the charac-
ter of Titus, and his treatment in the dialogue of the play.
And in this reference it is significant that we find more
in Titus’ speeches of what strikes us now as turgid and
even bombastic than in those of any of the other
characters. The literary and poetic level, for instance, of
the speeches of Tamora, Aaron, and Marcus seem to me,
on the whole, higher than those of Titus. His speeches
in his first interview with the ravished and mutilated
Lavinia are an example of this. His elaborate and
laboured comparisons between Lavinia and himself and
the welkin, the earth and the sea, are confused, ineffective,
inconsistent, and end in the really unpardonable lines —

For why my bowels cannot hide her woes,

But like a drunkard must I vomit them.

So, too, for us, at least, such lines as

Let my tears stanch the earth’s dry appetite —

O earth ! I will befriend thee with more rain, etc.,

seem to us forced and fanciful rather than really forceful
and convincing, and reaching either the sublime or the
pathetic. Yet it can hardly be denied that there is a good
deal that is not much better than this in his other plays,
and that Shakespeare seemed to look on this sort of
language as suitable to persons suffering from extreme
excitement. Hence, for instance, comes the famous mixed
metaphor in Hamlet’s great soliloquy, of “ taking arms

XXXVlll

INTRODUCTION

against a sea of troubles,” which I have always defended
on the very ground that it is intentional, as an indication
of Hamlefs perturbed state of mind. There is, indeed,
a very striking parallel to Hamlet's image in the very
lines of Titus —

For now I stand as one upon a rock
Environed with a wilderness of sea, etc.,

and probably the mental picture in Shakespeare's mind on
both occasions was identical.

But there are fine and purely poetic touches in Titus'
speeches, ab his image regarding Lavinia's tears —

as doth the honey-dew
Upon a gathered lily almost wither’d.

But we moderns are so schooled to what we call realism
that, perhaps, we are not fair judges of the Elizabethan
manner of expressing violent emotions in terms of strange,
elaborate, and grotesque imagery. Poetry under such
conditions expresses, not so much what a man would
actually say, but the things he ought^ from a poetic or
dramatic point of view, to say. Scotch peasants do not
court in the language of Burns' love-songs, which are the
poet's expression of an emotion which all others felt, but
which few or none can adequately express. So, in Shake-
speare and other Elizabethan dramatists, violent emotions
are expressed, we may almost say symbolised, in fantastic
and violent language. But there are splendid dramatic
touches in the treatment of Titus. His sudden laughter,
his half-hysterical “ Ha ! ha ! ha I '' for swift and tremendous
effect can, perhaps, only be paralleled by the “ Knocking
in Macbeth” for profound and startling dramatic force.

INTRODUCTION

XXXIX

Again, his sudden calmness in the wonderful scene with
the fly (when he, as I think, merely pretends madness), when
he seems all at once to resume his self-mastery, and tells
the servants to take away, and asks Lavinia to go with
him and read

Sad stories, chanced in the times of old,

is most effective, and would be a great opportunity for
a great actor.

But I think we always get our best test of Shakespeare
in his final and total effects rather than in detail, and the
final effect of Titus upon us approximates to that of Lear
in being superhuman, titanic, something out of the ordinary
scale of humanity ; and the same is true, even more so, of
Tamora: who, as always seems to me, ought to be on the
scale of Keats’ heathen goddess, one “ who would have
ta’en Achilles by the hair and bent his neck.^’

Let us now turn to the only other character of
absolutely first importance in the drama, Aaron the
Moor.

Now, in the character of Aaron, Shakespeare seems to
have made a great, if only partially successful, attempt to
humanise the ordinary stage villain or monster, as then
rendered, even by so great a man as Marlowe. And Mar-
lowe, be it noted, makes no attempt to redeem his villains.
He loves them to be monsters ; and monsters they remain
in his hands. But Shakespeare aimed obviously, not at
whitewashing his villains, as a modem author might do
(especially if writing history (szc)\ but at humanising them,
which is unfortunately quite another thing. And this is
the object of the whole of the business of Aaron and his

xl

INTRODUCTION

black baby, than which nothing in Shakespeare or out is
more admirably managed ; and could he have left the
character then, it might have been set, as an artistic creation,
on a level at least with Richard III., if not lago. Unfor-
tunately he relapses towards the end of the play into the
crudely monstrous and devilish. At the same time, this
is not altogether out of nature, certainly not out of Shake-
speare’s conception of it ; for more subtly as lago is
undoubtedly managed, he is in reality very nearly of the
same purely malicious and fiendish character as Aaron.
Two other great writers have given us characters quite as
irredeemably malignant as either of these — Shelley in the
Cenci, and Browning in the character of Count Guido Fran-
ceschini, in The Ring and the Book, Shelley’s character of
the Father in his splendid play has often been criticised as
being exaggerated, but the latest information on the subject
tends clearly to show that Shelley’s portrayal was justified
by the facts. Browning does his best to give us some hope
for the soul of Guido, but leaves us in doubt as to whether
God Himself can make anything of such a soul, without
casting it into the melting-pot again, in other words,
unmaking it. And, if a thoroughgoing optimist like
Browning comes to such a conclusion, we need not be
surprised that a so faithful, and even sternly faithful, de-
lineator of character as Shakespeare should frequently
delineate characters which seem hopelessly bad and incap-
able of repentance, as Regan and Goneril, Claudius, Richard
III., and lago. These wilfully wicked characters are indeed
curiously abundant in Renaissance times, and we have only
to recall the Borgia and the Medici families in order to con-
vince ourselves of the fact. The Renaissance indeed, while

INTRODUCTION xli

inaugurating a great artistic and intellectual revival, seems
to have had the effect of almost annihilating conscience.
The encountering tides of mediaeval Christianity and
revived Pagan naturalism seem to have, and that in the
greatest men and women of that time, obliterated all moral
distinctions, — a phenomenon exemplified in The Prince of
Machiavelli, which itself became a sort of Devil's Bible which
taught one to unlearn all that was honourable and noble in
the one ethical system, and all that was kind and merciful
in the other. Hence Marlowe, who himself in his life too
well exemplifies this, introduces Machiavelli as the presiding
evil genius in The Jew of Malta, Many Englishmen had
too well learnt this lesson, either by contact with Italians,
or by the study of Machiavelli and kindred literature ; and
learnt it so well that to this day the Italians have a pro-
verb to the effect that an Italianised Englishman is a
* perfect fiend." Even Scott, who has no liking for the
morally revolting, in his notes to Kenilworth represents
Leicester as highly skilled in Renaissance iniquities, as a
poisoner, suborner, murderer, etc. Therefore one is not
much at a loss to guess where Shakespeare and even Mar-
lowe got models for their “ perfect fiends," So that, crude
as Aaron seems to us, who live in times when such
crimes are the exception and not the rule, we cannot
reasonably maintain that it is out of nature ; and, indeed,
in our own criminal annals, do we not find monsters
of cruelty and iniquity not unworthy of comparison even
with Aaron? But what seems to us to constitute the
crudity of his character is the seeming lack of interested
motive for his abominable crimes ; for, even in lago, pure
malice and malignity are mitigated by and mingled with his

xlii

INTRODUCTION

suspicion of Emilia’s misconduct with Othello. But Aaron’s
character is not quite as crude as it looks. He was
Tamora’s lover; and, though love in any high sense was
foreign to his nature, he naturally enough took her side in
this fierce quarrel. Himself lustful and corrupt and involved
in a bold and perilous intrigue, the obtrusive virtue of
Lavinia would naturally irritate and offend him, as would
the haughty superiority of the Romans generally. Virtue
is ever a deadly offence to vice, and the happiness of pure
and faithful love in Bassianus and Lavinia would be gall
and wormwood to one steeped as he was in lust and intrigue.
One critic asks why he should have turned his malice
against Bassianus and Lavinia and not against Saturninus,
who was his rival in regard to Tamora. But surely to ask
this question is to display a curious ignorance of human
nature. For a creature like Aaron, in whom mere lust was
the predominant element in his attachment to Tamora,
would have towards Saturninus (off whose loaf he was so
freely cutting ** shives ”) a feeling much more of contempt
and triumph than of hatred ; and his pleasure in carrying
on the intrigue, had an added zest in the thought of the
disgrace and dishonour his success reflected on his imperial
rival. The death of Saturninus meant, moreover, the fall
of the whole party, including Tamora, and that he dare not
risk ; for with them he would fall also, whereas the death
of Bassianus confirmed Saturninus in his imperial power,
and with him Tamora. A successful rival of his imperial
master, the paramour of an imperial mistress, any blandish-
ments or favours that Tamora had to bestow on her lord
and master to retain her influence would never trouble so
gross a nature as Aaron’s. For, to a nature so gross, the

INTRODUCTION

xliii

idea that he must to some extent share Tamora with her
husband, would not be so revolting as it would to a finer
nature. It was enough for such an one to know that
his mistress preferred him and yielded herself freely
to him.

Aaron is then, I think, by no means as unnatural as his
own rhodomontade towards the end of the play would make
us believe. His pure malignity, and avowed love of evil for
its own sake, is at least mitigated by self-interest, by zeal
for the party he belonged to and for a mistress he admired,
if he did not love. On the other hand, his tenderness to
his child must not be rated too highly. It is in the first
place intensely selfish ; it is as a bit of himself y a second
self, that he cherishes it. And this very tenderness to his
child brings out his want of love and consideration for
Tamora, whom he at first proposes to leave to her fate.
Of any really noble and unselfish feeling Aaron, like lago,
Regan, Goneril, and Richard III., is represented as incap-
able, and so, according to Shakespeare's ethical or spiritual
system, he is a lost soul. From the Sonnets onward to Lear^
Shakespeare's doctrine of redemption, through the love which
is a power and faculty in the soul of the lover and not
dependent on the attractions or the natural relationship of
the object of the love, is continually proclaimed. In Titus,
as in Lear, instinctive parental love is shown up in its
inability to stand the test of any, even moderate, trial.
Both these men think they love their children, but they
only love them selfishly, as their own offspring, with an
instinctive, almost animal, love, and not with a personal love,
which in Shakespeare's view is the only love worth the name.
I am tempted here to quote in full Shakespeare's magni-

xliv

INTRODUCTION

ficent declaration of the immortal unchanging character of
true love :

Sonnet cxvi.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove ;

O no, it is an ever-fix^d mark,

That looks on tempests, and is never shaken ;

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come ;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks.

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error, and upon me proved,

I never writ, and no man ever loved.

In my humble opinion the man that wrote this sonnet
not only could have written all the finest poetry that comes
into the plays, but was the only man living, with the possible
exception of Spenser, who could have produced it. Com-
pare this, for instance, with Bacon's wooden and prosaic
‘‘ Essay on Love," in which he regards Love as in the
main a weakness and evil, and a thing to be avoided.
Yet this, in this respect, ligneous philosopher wrote Romeo
and Juliet, if you please ! Can human credulity be carried
further than this !

Shakespeare's view seems to have been, not that natural
and even sexual love were evils, as Bacon seems to hold,
but that in them lay the germs of true love, and that only
through them could the higher forms of love be reached.
He did not fail to observe — what, indeed, did he fail to
observe in human nature? — that this purer form of love
springs yet more readily from what we may call the more

INTRODUCTION

xlv

disinterested forms of “ kindly ” or natural love, as in this
very play he makes the love of brother and uncle, of
Lucius and Marcus, a purer affection than Titus’ had been,
until Lavinia’s sufferings develop in him a more personal
love, what Tennyson, that great disciple of Shakespeare in
such matters, calls “ The love of a soul for a soul.”

In Aaron we have this ‘‘ kindly ” and instinctive love
at its lowest, and yet we feel that there, if anywhere, lies
the hope of redemption for so dark a soul as that of
the Moor ; and we can quite imagine, had it suited Shake-
speare’s dramatic purpose, that he could have portrayed
for us such a redemption. It is a long step for Titus
Andronicus to the Luck of Roaring Camp\ but we have
in both an instance of the softening influence of helpless
childhood on rough and even evil natures.

The villain of the early Elizabethan dramas, being the
successor of the ‘‘ Devil or Vice ” of the morality plays,
was bound, as such, to excite in some way the contempt,
as well as the reprobation, of the audience. This was most
readily secured by some physical or national disability,
the deformity of Richard III., the nationality of Shylock
and Barabbas, and the Cimmerian hue of Aaron ; and it
showed a rise in Shakespeare’s moral courage, with his
fame and maturity of power, that he ventured to make
Othello a hero, and to put thoroughly human touches into
Shylock. It must be noticed, too, that Shakespeare in
Othello returns to one of his Titus Andronicus themes,
the love between members of the black and white races.
But with his usual ingenuity and psychologic skill, he
makes the relationship of a very different character. Yet
the same problem exercises his mind, and it seemed as

xlvi

INTRODUCTION

though, even at its best, he regarded the union as un-
natural, if not forbidden. For the whole tragedy in
Othello turns on this point, as does the denouement in
Titus Andronicus, For it is the diabolic skill with which
lago works this point with Othello that more than any-
thing else persuades him of Desdemona's unfaithfulness.
It is proverbial, and I fancy matter of common observation
in countries where white and black races come together, that
for some white women the negro or other dark man has
a peculiar fascination. And it is this, I strongly suspect,
and not merely the salaciousness of the male negro, that
makes the white man so furious and unmerciful in his
punishments of black offenders. So in South Africa the
punishment of the Kaffir for such offences is quite Dracon-
ian. Now, in the case of Tamora, Shakespeare gives us
clearly enough to understand that the relation is one of
lustful passion ; but in Othello he indicates quite as dis-
tinctly that this was not so, but that Desdemona’s love was
a personal love founded on sympathy and admiration. Yet
I think Shakespeare looked on their clandestine marriage
as wrong, and as affording Fate the opportunity of bringing
about the tragic coil, just as Titus’ cruelty and Lear’s in-
justice lead, as it were inevitably, to their own terrible
sufferings.

Another coincidence in the treatment of Aaron and
lago (Jachimo, a much poorer villain, repents), is that
Shakespeare, regarding mere death as an inadequate pun-
ishment for such villains, reserves them both for horrible
tortures later on. Tamora and the others are regarded as
adequately or appropriately punished, the one by death and
the horrible meal she had to make, and the two Bashi-

INTRODUCTION

xlvii

bazouks by being coolly slaughtered and bled, like the beasts
they were. Poor Desdemona suffers more than enough for
her indiscretion and disobedience, and Othello for his dis-
trust of her. But Aaron and I ago are reserved for a more
terrible fate ; and yet we feel assured that these monsters
of malice and wickedness will, like many a modern criminal
and Richard III. himself, ‘‘ die game ” ; for there is in both
a strength of spirit, in the pursuit of evil though it be, that
wrings from us a genuine, if reluctant, admiration, such as
we feel for the sublime malignity and unconquerable en-
durance of Milton’s Satan.^

There is one remaining character of first importance in
the play, and one who seems to have been almost as cruelly
mishandled by the critics of this play, as she was by the
two ruffians in the drama itself. I mean, of course, the
unfortunate and cruelly-used Lavinia. There are symp-
toms of a hostile feeling towards poor Lavinia in earlier
critics, such as Steevens, but the attack culminates in Mr.
Arthur Symons’ Introduction to the Facsimile of the First
Quarto. London, Praetorius,” an Introduction whose merits
in other respects make this point all the more worthy of
discussion here.

Lavinia,” writes Mr. Symons, ‘‘ is a single and un-
mixed blunder. There is no other word for it. I can
never read the third scene of the second Act without amaze-
ment at the folly of the author, who requiring in the nature
of things to win our sympathy for his afflicted heroine, fills
her mouth with the grossest and vilest insults against
Tamora — so gross, so vile, so unwomanly that her punish-

^ Macbeth falters at the end, not being a criminal born, as those others may
almost be called, but a man led into crime by ambition and circumstance.

xlviii

INTRODUCTION

merit becomes something of a retribution instead of being
wholly a brutality.”

This criticism, the expression of which, when any reader
compares it with what Lavinia really does say, must
appear grossly exaggerated, shows a great lack of the his-
toric sense ; for the point we have to consider is, not what
would be ‘‘ gross or unwomanly ” in a modern British matron
under these unusual circumstances, but what would seem so
in an Elizabethan lady ; for in such matters Shakespeare
was invariably “ of his time.” Lavinia’s remarks are cer-
tainly irritating to a person in Tamora's compromising, or
more than compromising, situation, but “ vile, gross,” and so
forth, it is really absurd to call them. Bassianus launches
out very freely, it is true, but he is not Lavinia, and I can
hardly help thinking Mr. Symons’ memory has played him
a trick, and has made him mix up the utterances of those
two. But let us ask ourselves the question, the only fair
one to ask under the circumstances. What would a virtuous
Elizabethan lady have said to another Elizabethan lady
whom she discovered in the midst of a loathsome, adulterous
intrigue, a woman, moreover, whom, as a successful rival, she
had every cause to hate ? And, surely, a good woman has
as much right to hate as a bad one, and as much right to
a free expression of her opinion ? Let us put the question
in this more precise form — What sort of language would
“ good Queen Bess ” have used to a lady of her Court whom
she found in the midst of an adulterous intrigue with a
menial, and that menial a blackamoor? I fear such an
utterance would bristle with strange oaths and vernacular
expressions disused in our drawing-rooms for something
like a century. For I take it that Elizabethan freedom of

INTRODUCTION

xlix

speech could only be paralleled nowadays in force, if not
in variety, by what one unwillingly overhears in the street
disputes of the less reputable classes. What a modern
British matron would say under similar circumstances I
confess I can form no idea, but I fancy she would be a
very stupid specimen of the order if she did not manage to
convey, in a manner no less irritating to the erring one,
much the same significance as do the words of Lavinia in
the play. Two things seem to me to be required for the
full elucidation of this point. First, that Mr. Symons should
tell us what Lavinia ought to have said. He is a poet,
and quite capable of putting it in artistic form. Secondly,
a version of a scene of similar kind from the pen of a
modern lady-novelist. Then should we be in a position
to judge if it is fair to characterise Lavinia^s speeches as
“ gross, vile, and unwomanly.”

In the meanwhile, before we can obtain these illumina-
tive aids, I venture upon the dictum that Lavinia’s speeches
should not be so characterised, but that they are, all through,
simply maladroit^ and intentionally maladroit. For, be it
observed, the difficulty with the dramatist is not to secure
our sympathy with Lavinia, to whom it naturally flows, but
to mitigate our pity for her by making her provocative.
No one can fail to sympathise with Lavinia, and the object
of the dramatist is rather to divide our sympathies than
concentrate them. So in Lear^ Cordelia^s speech to her
father is also very maladroit^ and partly alienates our
sympathies. Both Lavinia and Cordelia have a share of
the family failings, and both exemplify, whether intention-
ally or no, the saying, that there is nearly always about
virtue an element of harshness. And it seems to me that
d

1

INTRODUCTION

the reader who allows his sympathy to be diverted so easily
from poor Lavinia, has just incontinently fallen into the pit
the subtle dramatist has dug for the unwary. The An-
dronici, like the Lear family, were too uncompromising, for
good or evil ; and even Lucius, who is made to be chastened
and softened, as the play goes on, by pity and affection,
is at first harsh and cruel ; and the Alarbus incident, which
is apparently the pure invention of the author of this
version of the play, is at once the test of the Andronicus
character, and the key to the stern justice of the piece.
And the justice is terribly stern, especially so in the case
of Lavinia, as in Lear in that of Cordelia. But, perhaps,
it would be fairer to Shakespeare to say that what he aims
at showing is not exactly the justice so much as the in-
exorable logic or causality of events. For while Lear and
Titus have largely deserved their sufferings, this cannot be
justly said of either Lavinia or Cordelia. They are in-
volved in a fatal coil, and, though they do not deserve, yet
their faults, slight as they seem, contribute to their own
misfortunes and the general catastrophe. So far, then,
from being “ an unmixed blunder,” and, therefore, we are
told, not Shakespeare’s work (as if such an essential char-
acter in the plot could possibly be wholly the work of
a different hand to the rest), Lavinia is not only no
blunder, but particularly subtly managed and specially
characteristic of Shakespeare. For not only has she her
successor in Cordelia, but she has her predecessor or con-
temporary in Lucrece, as Tamora has her successors in
Lady Macbeth and Cleopatra, and her predecessors or con-
temporaries in Venus and Queen Margaret.

Now, while Shakespeare, like all writers of tragedy.

INTRODUCTION li

(Mr. Churton Collins points out the close resemblance
between his plots and those of the Greek tragic dramatists),
chooses terrible and even revolting plots, and spares his
readers or audience little or nothing of their utmost horror,
we feel, the more closely we study his plays, that this is
not done in wantonness merely to harrow up our feelings,
but that it is done partly on artistic dramatic younds, and
partly for the sake of what I have called the n nl resultant,
Le, the production of that state of awe ai > pity which
Aristotle so finely says is, and should be, the outcome of
the best tragedy. Still we feel that he treats with a
particular affection some of the milder and even weaker
characters of his dramas. Although the phrase, “ the gentle
Shakespeare,’' must not be taken in any modern namby-
pamby sense, everything we know goes to show that Shake-
speare, unlike his stormy and riotous predecessors, Peele,
Nash, Greene, and Marlowe, and the cantankerous Ben
Jonson, was himself a man of peace. And in nearly all his
plays we have characters of a mild type, some with a touch
of melancholy, like Antonio in the Merchant of Venice ;
some like Richard II. and Henry VI., quite unequal to holding
their own in stormy times, but portrayed by Shakespeare
with a wealth of sympathy which he would hardly have
lavished on characters not congenial to his own, characters
which were probably not popular with his rumbustious
Elizabethan audiences, who revelled in his villains and
heroes. As we have so little to guide us as to which parts
Shakespeare himself took, and only know definitely that he
took Adam in As You Like and The Ghost in Hamlet ^
we may innocently indulge in a speculation, which is, that
Shakespeare wrote these “ mild ” parts for himself. Now

lii

INTRODUCTION

one of the characters of his attributed plays which best
exemplifies this type is Marcus, brother of Titus, the
peaceful tribune, the admiring brother, the loving and
sympathetic uncle, the character who is almost alone kept
guiltless throughout the drama. I feel sure Shakespeare
took great pains with this character, and gave him, as he
often does these gentle characters, no small share in the
literary and poetic honours of the piece. His scene with
poor Lavinia is the most touching in the play, and his
description of her lute-playing a piece of the purest poetry.
Nor is Marcus weak, though a man of peace himself, and
we feel the fitness of the words of -^milius —

Come, come, thou reverend man of Rome,

And bring our Emperor gently in your hand !

That Emperor was, of course, Lucius (who has a similar r61e
to the Lucius in Cymbeline^ ; and Lucius, as we have already
said, is a character softened and chastened during the
progress of the play. He is less involved in the horrors of
the play, after the Alarbus incident, than the others, and
his killing Saturninus, who had the moment before stabbed
Titus his father, was at once instinctive and defensible.
His distinguishing feature is his brotherly affection to his
brethren as well as to Lavinia, a brotherly affection that
Shakespeare is fond of depicting, and which he evidently
valued as often coming nearer to pure disinterested personal
love than even that between parents and children, or lover
and mistress. Nor is Lucius wanting in true filial affection.
His tenderness to his father when pleading for his two sons*
lives to the deaf and departing tribunes is very beautiful —

O noble father, you lament in vain ;

The tribunes hear you not, no man is by.

INTRODUCTION

liii

There remain the two brothers, claimants — one successful,
and the other unsuccessful — to the Empire, Saturninus and
Bassianus. In the old Titus and VesJ>asia, the former is
just called the Kaiser or Emperor, and Bassianus is
simply known as the husband of Andronica,^’ t.e, Lavinia.
Where Shakespeare got the name Saturninus I do not
know, as there is no Roman Emperor of the name. He
may have coined it from Saturn, as a name of evil omen
(see notes on Aaron’s speech. Act II. iii. 31). Bassianus is
a close analogue of Bassanio^ and Shakespeare is fond of
repeating or slightly varying names ; as, for instance, in the
cowardly Sir John Fastolfe in 1 Henry VI. we have a close
analogue of our friend Sir John Falstaff, originally Old-
castle, in Henry IV.

With regard to the two rival brothers, and Shakespeare
is very fond of the theme, having it twice over in this
play alone, what is first remarkable is the skill with which
he clearly distinguishes the two characters. Their claims
are differently based, the one on primogeniture and favour
of the aristocracy, the other on virtues he implicitly claims
in his first speech and in the favour of tribunes and people.
Saturninus is a despicable character, ungrateful and suspi-
cious, weak, cruel, and a slave of his desires, as his sudden
change from Lavinia to Tamora shows ; and I think
Bassianus certainly implies grave defects in his brother’s
character in his first speech.

Bassianus, on the other hand, is virtuous, a constant
lover and husband, and an honourable and unsuspicious
man, readily forgiving Titus the injustice he wished to
inflict on him. Even if we judge, with some, harshly
of his uncompromising remarks to Tamora, he is one

liv INTRODUCTION

of the most worthy and innocent characters in the
play.

It is often stated by the assailants of Shakespeare^s
authorship of the play that it lacks the comic char-
acters which Shakespeare usually introduces for relief to the
tragic stress of his serious dramas. This, in the first place,
is not literally correct, because there can be no doubt that
the Clown with the basket of pigeons is as much intended
as “comic relief** as is the more famous Porter in Macbeth.
He belongs too, most unmistakably to a type, the rustic
clown, of which Shakespeare is very fond, and which he
continually repeats, if with increasing skill and success.
These clowns are clearly copied from the English country
bumpkin of his own day, and in their misuse of words they
give us the beginnings of Mrs. Malaprop. Mr. Crawford
has collected the parallelisms with this scene from Love's
Labour's Lost, the Two Gentlemen of Verona, Winter's Tale,
and The Merchant of Venice, in which Costard, the Clown,
Quince, and Old Gobbo form the closest of parallels to this
earlier study. But, what is perhaps yet more remarkable,
he points out the frequent use of the basket in Shake-
speare*s plays, especially the basket with doves in it, as in
Titus Andronicus, The Merchant of Venice, and that with
herbs, Romeo and Juliet, or with fruit (concealing the asp) in
Antony and Cleopatra, That these characters and scenes
are strongly typical and characteristic of Shakespeare I
think no reasonable person can possibly doubt. Although
we do not find this clown very funny, he says one quaint
thing, closely resembling a saying of Old Gobbo*s — “ God
forbid I should be so bold as press to heaven in my young
days.** In fact, the English rustic is not by nature such a

INTRODUCTION Iv

ready source of humour as either the Scotch or the Irish,
and it takes even Shakespeare all his time, and sometimes
even more than all, to make him very funny. If he had only
been a Scotchman or Irishman, what fun we should have had !

Now, I think, without any flattery to myself, or those
whose criticisms and researches have so greatly assisted
me, I may say that a very formidable case has been made
out in favour of Shakespeare being, to all intents and
purposes, the author of the play of Titus Andronicus
as we now have it. Mr. Crawford is prepared, and his
most remarkable parallelisms must be seen and studied to
be fully appreciated, to maintain that Shakespeare “ wrote
every word of it.” I will not go so far as this, especially
because there are one or two points in which the piece is
dramatically weak, such as when the two brothers fall into the
pit, and when Tamora tries to befool Titus in the character
of Revenge. I feel that if Shakespeare had conceived these
scenes originally, or had even very carefully remodelled
them, he might have made them much more convincing.

But some of the unfavourable criticisms are quite beside
the mark, and show a careless reading on the part of the
critic. For example, many critics cry out on the alleged
improbability of Titus, an old man with his one hand (his
left) cut off, aided by the handless Lavinia, having been able
to cut the throats of Demetrius and Chiron. This criticism
is founded on a very loose reading of the play, for not only
does the affair take place in Titus’ own house in the presence
of a number of his friends^ but, before he attempts anything,
the two victims are not only securely bound hand and foot,
but gagged, so as to be unable to speak or to use their
mouths and teeth, as they might otherwise have done. So

Ivi INTRODUCTION

that to a powerful, if aged, man like Titus, acting under
strong excitement and armed with a razor, there could be
no possible difficulty in executing his dire revenge. Revolt-
ing the scene may be and is, improbable it certainly is not ;
no more improbable than that the professional hangman
can put the noose over the head of his pinioned victim.
Another critic, in his anxiety to find fault, forgets that Titus
encloses a knife along with the letter to Saturninus, con-
veyed by the Clown. The business of this knife and the
shooting of the arrows seems, indeed, to want some elucida-
tion, But Titus seems to have had two objects at this
point — the one to convince both friends and enemies of
his madness, and the other, in a kind of bravado, to warn
the latter of their approaching fate. Neither of these motives
or aims seem at all out of character in a man burning for
and plotting revenge, and apparently recklessly confident of
success.

The Spanish Tragedy^ now generally attributed, with
the exception of late additions, to Thomas Kyd, is the
Jeromino of Ben Jonson's allusion to Jerontino and
Andronicus. It was at one time thought that the plays
might be by the same author or authors, but I do not
think that is a theory worth discussion now. For, if Kyd*s
authorship of The Spanish Tragedy be admitted, and the
force of the foregoing arguments for Shakespeare's author-
ship of Andronicus acknowledged, it seems idle indeed to
attempt to identify the authors as one person. But, apart
from that, neither in general dramatic structure, in style of
versification, in the power of character discrimination, nor
with regard to the “moral resultant,” do the two plays,
despite some similarities in the story, seriously resemble each

INTRODUCTION

Ivii

other. For, if we are to go upon mere verbal similarities,
or even upon passages and characters whose close resem-
blance suggest imitation or even conscious plagiarism, it
is hardly too much to say, that were we not safeguarded
by dates and direct contemporary evidence, it would be
perfectly easy to make out an almost equally good case
for Marlowe, Greene, Peele, or Kyd, or even Beaumont and
Fletcher, having written the plays attributed to Shake-
speare, or to each other ; or, on the other hand, for Shake-
speare having written theirs. The fact is, that if there
ever was such a thing as a literary school^ it was that which
produced the Elizabethan drama which culminated in
Shakespeare’s masterpieces. Shakespeare was not a dwarf
on a giant’s back, even if we call Marlowe a giant. He
was a man of giant stature raised still higher on the
shoulders of his predecessors. Like the early Christians,
the members of this school seem to have “ had all things in
common.” They emulated, imitated, and, as we should
say, stole from each other, without the slightest scruple.
The plots they used were common property, being seldom
or never, especially in tragedy, invented by the dramatist,
whose object does not seem to have been so much to
produce an original contribution to literature, as to write
a successful play. This was undoubtedly Shakespeare’s
view, who certainly at first regarded his dramas as
ephemeral productions compared with his sonnets and
narrative poems.^ So, if one dramatist wrote a successful

^ I incline to Mr. Swinburne’s view, that Shakespeare latterly, at any rate,
recognised the value of his own dramatic work, and took pains in revising it for
the First Folio. The wonderful scene in Titus ^ where Marcus kills the fly, may
be a later addition, though Shakespeare’s tendency was rather to prune down
than to expand in his editing of his plays.

Iviii INTRODUCTION

play, or created a popular character, it was sure to be
imitated and even burlesqued, or developed and improved
upon by some of his fellow-dramatists. Dramatic characters
will always have a tendency to be typical, and it is only
in the hands of a master like Shakespeare that these types
become living creations and individual characters ; and the
inferiority of Jonson, and the Restoration dramatists that
follow him, lay just in this, that the types remain types
rather than characters throughout. Now, in real life,
everyone, to some extent, belongs to a type, and at the
same time differs from it. I may be a miser, or a spend-
thrift, a fop or a villain, a clown or a pedant, voluptuary
or ascetic, and yet even in my miserliness, etc. etc., I will
differ from other misers, spendthrifts, etc., and still more
will I combine with my miserliness, and so forth, traits which
distinguish me from all the misers, etc., who ever lived.
It is the same in prose fiction ; and all successful “creations”
in novels are at once types and individuals, and not only
human types, but what we may call literary types, being
traceable from one author to another. All really vital
fiction, whether in prose or verse, presents us with these
individualised types. No better illustration of this can be
given than Chaucer’s Canterbury pilgrims, who are avowedly
types and yet unmistakably individuals. We recognise
a character for human by its typical elements which we
find in ourselves or others, but it becomes a personality for
us by its individual traits. We feel as certain that there
exists, or could exist, only one Sir John Falstaflf as we do
regarding the living persons we know that they, even if
commonplace, are still distinct and single personalities ; for
this power of uniting the type and the individual is in no

INTRODUCTION lix

writer so pronounced as in Shakespeare himself. Nothing
would be easier than to classify all Shakespeare's characters
into a series of well-defined types ; nothing is more certain
than that we should find each member of the series to
possess a clear individuality. Now this is not the case,
or, at least, to anything like the same degree, with the
very best of his rivals or immediate successors. For my
own part, I cannot find the same real vitality in the best
and greatest of Marlowe's characters that one almost
invariably finds in even the least and worst of Shake-
speare's. That Shakespeare emulated, admired, copied,
and, if you like so to phrase it, stole from Marlowe, I am
not in the least interested to deny ; but that even in
Shakespeare’s earliest plays his characters have this vitality
or individuality that Marlowe's and the others' lack, I am
prepared very roundly to assert and, if so subtle a matter
can be argued, to maintain.

Now I will take what is, so far as we can obtain it
in literature, an objective test, and I will ask how does
it come that the works of Shakespeare are still generally
read, and still acted with success in every country where
they may be said to be really accessible, and that, to all
intents and purposes, the works of his most able con-
temporaries are, so far as the general public goes, dead,
both as literature and as drama ? No doubt connoisseurs of
literature and the drama read their works, with more or
less sincere enjoyment, but what does the average man
or woman care about them, or know about them, apart
from having the names of their works thrust before them
at school or college ? Now, anyone who has any taste for
poetic and dramatic literature can read the best books of

lx INTRODUCTION

Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson or Webster,
with, perhaps, a pleasure akin to that he derives from
those of Shakespeare himself, but the pleasure, I will under-
take to say, arises from the literary^ rather than the
creative power they display. Both Doctor Faustus and
the Jeiv of Malta are magnificently written. But what
is Faustus, as a character -creation, beside Macbeth or
lago, Lear or Hamlet, or Barrabas beside Shylock or
lago, or even Aaron ! For although, undoubtedly, the
mind of the author of Titus Andronicus was running
strongly on Barrabas and kindred characters in the plays
of his predecessors, yet in the marvellous scenes be-
tween Aaron and his black child, the character rises into
the region of creative power, from which it descends
when he relapses into the Barrabas vein. So marked is
this that one suspects that Shakespeare, some of whose
best plays — such as Macbeth — show signs of haste and
carelessness, left some of the older and cruder material
standing in Aaron’s last speeches. Coleridge, who is
sometimes unhappy in his Shakespeare criticisms, implies
that Shakespeare was dull and slack at the openings
of his plays, and only “ took fire ” as he got on in the
story. On the contrary, I think Shakespeare opens his
plays with great care and art, and nowhere more so than
in Titus Andronicus^ where he manages in the one scene,
and without the use of any tedious narrative, to put the
reader in possession, not only of the essential elements of
the story, but of those of the moral problem which he
proposes to work out. The moral is, that cruelty and
injustice lead to revenge yet more cruel, and culminate
in a yet more horrible vengeance, in which the avenged and

INTRODUCTION

Ixi

the avenger are alike overwhelmed. Titus* vengeance was,
it is true, a kind of wild justice ; but we do not feel that the
author exults in it, or even approves of it ; and I think the
moral resultant of the play is forcibly to recall the text :
“ Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.** We see this clearly
in the final speeches of Marcus and Lucius, who seem
thoroughly conscious that by such deeds and by this creed
of vengeance, not only are individuals outraged and fami-
lies destroyed, but the whole fabric of society and the
state endangered. It is the moral of the three parts
of Henry VI,, if not of nearly all the historical plays.
The squeamish and namby-pamby persons who would
strike this powerful and, if you will, appalling tragedy
from the roll of Shakespeare*s works (and at that rate
should treat the Medea of Euripides, if not the
Agamemnon of iEschyles in a similar manner), seem
to have little idea of the high purposes of Tragedy, or
of the intensity of moral purpose and clearness of moral
and spiritual insight which that of Shakespeare, at any
rate, displays.

That modern weakness of moral fibre, that false
sentimentalism, which tends to make our sympathies go to
the side of the criminal rather than his victim, was not
characteristic of the more masculine Elizabethan age.
Shakespeare himself, indeed, is never lacking in sym-
pathetic treatment of his very worst characters, but he
never flinches from allotting them the punishment they
deserve. [I speak, of course, of Tragedy, and not of
Comedy, where these severe sentences cannot, in the nature
of things, be carried out.] In the present play, for instance,
he gives Tamora as much excuse and sympathy as it is

Ixii

INTRODUCTION

possible justly to accord her. But she is partner, if not
chief instigator, of horrible crimes, and crimes against those,
Bassianus and Lavinia, who had personally done her no
wrong, and for this the dramatist feels bound to mete out
appropriate punishment. Her mere killing in the end of
the tragedy, when all the leading characters are killed off
as a matter of course, would not be sufficient. In times
when witches and heretics and more ordinary criminals
were tortured and burnt, Tamora's punishment, if grue-
some, could not be regarded as excessive. She had been
false to her womanhood, if to nothing else, in refusing to
Lavinia the mercy of death, and handing her over to her
ruffian sons. Rape has, is, and always should be regarded
as one of the most heinous of crimes, and, in a sense, far
worse than murder; and the woman who encouraged, if
she did not contrive, this outrage on one of her own sex,
is guilty of a crime all the more heinous that it lacks the
natural, if brutal, incentive of the actual ravishers. It is
the most revolting crime which Shakespeare attributes to a
woman in all his plays, and he accords it the most horrible
punishment. Even her maternal instincts and affections
do not carry her very far, for the moment a child of her
body, gotten of the one man she loved, is a danger to her,
she hands it over without compunction to the butcher’s
knife. Is it then so unjust, is it even so gratuitously
horrible, to make this woman, thus false even to her
instincts, eat the flesh and blood of her own offspring?
For the woman, indeed, who was the moral murderer of
her two sons, in encouraging them to commit the vilest of
crimes, and who was in intention an infanticide, could there
really be any more appropriate horror of punishment?

INTRODUCTION Ixui

That Shakespeare did not invent the episode is certain
from its occurring in the ballad. And he had also it
ready to his hand in the Philomela legend to which he
more than once alludes in this play. Shakespeare seems
consistently throughout his plays to be always endeavouring
to arouse our feeling for the morally horrible by presenting
us with the physically horrible. Thus, in Lear^ the
gouging of Gloucester’s eyes, the hanging of Cordelia, and
the physical sufferings of Lear are all meant to symbolise
and signalise what is morally revolting in the conduct of
Lear’s two elder daughters. Shakespeare, like his almost
sole rival in the sphere of spiritual morals, Robert Browning,^
sets the highest value on the instincts of natural affection,
although Shakespeare so carefully teaches us the inadequacy
of these instincts when they do not eventuate in really
personal love.

Poor Titus himself, like Lear, has more than expiated
his faults by his sufferings, and his death comes rather as
release than punishment. Aaron, like lago, as being the
most wantonly and maliciously wicked, is reserved for
unspeakable torment ; but it is remarkable that neither here
nor elsewhere does Shakespeare appeal to the guilty fear or
prospect of future retribution as a source of punishment to
his villains. He strives to make his moral sequences and
laws “ come full circle ” within the compass of his tragedies.
Except in the case of Hamlet’s father, I believe there is
little in Shakespeare to show his belief in a physical Hell
or Purgatory. Christian as Shakespeare is in spirit, he
will have little to do with what we may call Christian
theology or mythology as such, and still less with what we

^ See especially Ivan Ivanovitch,

Ixiv

INTRODUCTION

may call evangelical sentiment. He is too stern a realist,
and too earnest a student of life and human nature as he
saw it, to extricate his characters from the inevitable results
of their crimes and passions by any cheap and sudden con-
version. In some of his comedies the bad characters must,
perforce, in a way, repent and turn from their evil ways ; but
in his tragedies, as a rule, following his own powerful
first sketch of the “ Death of the wicked man,” Cardinal
Beaufort, who dies and gives no sign,” Shakespeare usually
lets his bad characters die unrepentant. Indeed, he draws
in Hamlet the terrible picture of a man striving to repent
and unable to do so. The ordinary preacher strives to
bring us to repentance by threatening that we shall have “ no
room for repentance.” The question is not one of room,
even in a metaphorical sense; it is the very faculty of
repenting that is lacking. Those of us who are not de-
ceived by the deceitfulness of our own hearts must all be
aware how difficult it is really to repent of a sin as such.
We regret readily the trouble and suffering our sins involve
in ourselves and others, but how difficult it is to repent ot
the sin itself^ or even to wish it had never been done !
Shakespeare must have held, I think, as Browning does
in Easter Day^ that some men, if not all, are judged
already. I take this to be the significance of Lear's
“ Ripeness is all,” meaning spiritual ripeness for good or eviL
When he wrote Titus Andronicus he had only the germs
of this religious philosophy, and yet I cannot but think
that the germs are certainly there. For the characters
divide themselves into two groups — into those who are
decisively y if not absolutely y bad, and those who are faulty.
The decisively bad, as Aaron, Tamora, Demetrius, Chiron,

INTRODUCTION

Ixv

and Saturninus, are sent to their account, without repentance
and with appropriate punishment. The merely faulty, like
Titus, Bassianus, and Lavinia,must be regarded as having fully
expiated such faults or errors as they had committed. Titus
like Lear, Hamlet, Othello, Coriolanus, Brutus, etc., commit
faults, but it would be a very great misuse of language to
call any of them bad men. Titus himself obviously does
what he thinks right. His piety or his superstition make
him really yield up Alarbus as a propitiatory sacrifice to
the perturbed spirits of his dead sons. Mutius ^ he slays
in a moment of passionate paternal indignation, caused by
Lavinia^s insubordination ; and if we turn to Midsummer
Nights Dreamy we find Egeus possessing power ot life
and death over Hermia under similar circumstances. That
Shakespeare thought Titus justified in his rash action, there
is no reason to think, and there is no doubt his sympathies
go largely with the two pairs of lovers. At the same
time, he does seem to attach a certain amount of blame
to a daughter’s actual defiance of her father’s commands, and
I think he holds it a fault in Lavinia, as he clearly does in
Desdemona, and as contributory to the catastrophe. Read-
ing between the lines of Midsummer Nights Dreamy I should
say that Shakespeare’s own position was, that while a
daughter had the right to refuse an unwelcome suitor, she
was wrong to marry the favoured one in defiance of her
father’s wishes and commands; or, if he did not regard
it as morally wrong, he regarded it as one of those acts
that invariably bring a certain retribution in their train.

^ As I point out in a note, for which I have to thank Mr. Crawford, Mutius,
like Alarbus, is an invention of Shakespeare’s own, and puts him wrong in the
number of Titus’ sons.

Ixvi INTRODUCTION

Theseus put the case for the father very strongly,
though he obviously here, as in the Knight's tale of
Chaucer, has great sympathy with the lovers. He says to
Hermia —

To you, your father should be as a god ;

One that composed your beauties ; yea, and one
To whom you are but as a form in wax.

By him imprinted, and within his power
To leave the figure, or disfigure it.

Shakespeare, already a husband and father, may have sym-
pathised with this view, but his heart goes out none the less
to pure and faithful love.

Midsummer Night's Dream was in all probability
written a year or two after Titus Andronicus^ and had
we been asked, without time for reflection, which of the
plays of Shakespeare had the least in common with the
Dream^ we might easily have been betrayed into saying
Titus AndronicuSy the most gruesome of tragedies, with
the Dreamy the most airy and delightful of comedies.”
But on looking a little closer (and here I am greatly
indebted to Mr. Crawford's careful investigations), we
find a really extraordinary resemblance between the two
plays.

One point of resemblance lies in the despotic claims
of the fathers I have already alluded to. But “ in both
plays,” writes Mr. Crawford, the will of the father is
forestalled ; Hermia elopes with Lysander, and Lavinia is
abducted by Bassianus.” The wood and its loneliness
play an important part in both dramas, and in both we
have the Hunting and the imperial or ducal Marriage.
Demetrius, like his namesake in Titus AndronicuSy quarrels

INTRODUCTION kvii

with Lysander, as his namesake with Chiron, and makes
a dark threat to Helena, which might mean similar violence
to that offered to Lavinia. Puck, as a comic Aaron,
intervenes, and though he works only temporary mischief,
he is for the time being the villain of the plot. Some
of the leading ideas in the plot are strangely alike, as
the marrying a captive queen by Theseus and Saturninus,
and the changing of brides in the one, and the criss-
cross love-making in the other. Even the sleepy fits
of the lovers in the woods cannot fail to remind us of
the preternatural drowsiness of the luckless Andronici in
Titus Andronicus. Another curious link between the two
plays is the use in both of the Pyramus and Thisbe legend,
and curiously enough of the word “ embrue ” in a sense in
which it does not occur in any of the other plays. The
two plays are in one sense alike, and in another absolutely
contrasted : just as a piece of tapestry or carpet presents the
same design on both its sides in reversed colours. The
inconstant Theseus is here a dignified and benignant figure,
while the variable Saturninus is a malignant and despicable
one. Helena pursuing Demetrius, and Lysander fleeing
from Hermia are the reverses of Lavinia pursued by her
two brutal lovers. Titania’s temporary infatuation for
Bottom has its tragic counterpart in Tamora^s passion for
Aaron.

Yet in some ways our first impression that the two
plays afford more contrast than resemblance is not so far
wrong.

Titus Andronicus is, I verily believe, Shakespeare^s first
essay in Tragedy, and it has all the characteristics of a
first essay. It is the work of a man learning his business.

Ixviii

INTRODUCTION

copying too closely^ his predecessors, unsure of himself,
and still unconscious of his superior powers ; afraid of
making trenchant alterations in his plot, unskilled in en-
twining it, as he so well could do later, with a second plot,
timid and half-hearted in his attempt to give comic relief to
the strain of the tragic interest, afraid of mulcting his
audience of the sensationalism they loved. Yet he has the
root of the matter in him ; his power of distinctive charac-
terisation ; his working to a certain moral balance, develop-
ment and resultant ; his gift of humanising grotesque types
of wickedness ; his interest in psychologic and moral prob-
lems, which he afterwards returned to and triumphantly
illustrated. He has already command of a noble poetic
rhetoric, and the beginnings at least of fine versification.
For both of which he may, and probably was, deeply
indebted to Marlowe ; but he was to put them to yet greater
and nobler dramatic use.

In Midsummer Nighfs Dreani^ on the other hand, we
have no longer the work of a student or scholar. There is
no sign of diffidence, little or any of imitation ; no timidity
in combining ideas from various sources, no restraint or
caution in the outlet of poetry, of fancy, and of exuberant
humour. How we see the marks of maturity in the man
of thirty, who must then begin to know his own powers,
and the confidence born of success (such as that gained by
Titus Andronicus), and the appreciation of that power by
others.

Titus is forced and laboured, the metaphors, the con-
ceits, the classical allusions are overdone and overloaded.

^ I think the weakness of the “ Quintus-and- Martins ” and ** Revenge ” scenes
are due to the close following of Marlowe.

INTRODUCTION Ixix

We see the young athlete essaying feats rather beyond
him.

In the Dreamy we see the giant, who has thus de-
veloped his thews and sinews, at play with lighter clubs or
weights. Play indeed to hinty and yet work no one else
can do. Here also, as later in The Tempesty he found him-
self able to indulge in his purely poetic vein, which was what
he chiefly valued himself upon. It is an outworn common-
place to say that Shakespeare, like Scott, undervalued his
own genius. But in both cases it is only partially true,
and more particularly in that of Shakespeare, who seems to
have been almost as unconscious of the incalculable value
of his dramatic work as Scott was of his work in prose
fiction. They both regarded themselves as public enter-
tainers, so to speak, and Scott’s serious interest was historic
rather than literary and creative. Shakespeare's, on the
other hand, was in the purely poetic, and in his sonnets, at
any rate, he is not backward to declare the immortality of
his verse. Like all other great idealists, he valued his work
the most where he had to concede least to public taste,
and wherein he felt himself most at liberty to express himself.
Scott did not want to express himself ; for it was mainly
the historic pageant that fascinated him. Scott lacked the
egotism that is almost essential to genius. Shakespeare
suppresses or disguises his personality in his dramas, but
not in the sonnets. Of course, both inevitably express
themselves in their imaginative works ; but Scott in a more
negative way than Shakespeare.

One might go on writing almost for ever on the re-
semblances and parallelisms between Titus Andronicus and
other plays of Shakespeare, resemblances which far outweigh

Ixx INTRODUCTION

the coincidences to be found between Titus Andronicus and
the works of other Elizabethans to whom it has been attri-
buted. But I think enough has been said to convince any
unprejudiced person that, at any rate, a strong case can be
made out in favour of Shakespeare’s authorship, and that
to dismiss the idea with contempt, as most of the opponents
of this idea do, is to show themselves either prejudiced or
ignorant, or both. For, either they allow their dislike to
the subject of the play entirely to warp their judgment, like
Fleay and Lis followers, or they are ignorant of the power-
ful argumeits and striking facts brought forward com-
paratively recently by Professor Schroer, Mr. Appleton
Morgan, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Fuller, Professor Baker, and
others in favour of Shakespeare’s authorship.

But someone must have written the play, and if Shake-
speare did not, who did ?

Three other names have been mentioned as having been
the possible authors of Titus Andronicus^ namely, Thomas
Kyd, George Greene, and Christopher Marlowe. Now the
amusing thing is that those who advocate the claims of
those various writers begin — at least, Dr. Grosart,^ in his
advocacy of Greene’s claims, begins — by accepting the
Ravenscroft assertion (for it is nothing else) that the play
was by a “ private author,” and only touched up by Shake-
speare. Now, we ask, how could either of these well-known
dramatists be designed as a ‘‘ private author ” ? Marlowe and
Greene certainly, and probably Kyd, were better known as
professed play-writers at the time the play was written than
Shakespeare himself. By no possible stretch of language
could any of them be called “ private authors.” So that

* Englische Studien^ vol. xxii. p. 389, etc.

INTRODUCTION

Ixxi

by citing Ravenscroft, Dr. Grosart gives the deathblow to
his theory of Greene’s authorship. The term “ private
author,” if we accept Ravenscroft’s statement, shuts out at
one stroke all the well-known Elizabethan writers from the
question ; and if we do not accept the Ravenscroft story,
there is no foundation in which to build any theory of a
non-Shakespearian authorship at all. The anti-Shake-
spearian in this case cannot eat his cake and have it. He
must either accept Ravenscroft or reject him ; if he accepts
him, we must content ourselves with an unknown and un-
knowable “ private author ” ; if he rejects him, he has no
foothold for any anti- Shakespearian theory whatsoever,
and remains therefore spitted on the horns of a formidable
dilemma. But suppose we pass over this case of logical
suicide, and ask what further has Dr. Grosart to say in
favour of Greene’s authorship.

He repeats the sentimental objections, which I have, I
think, utterly disposed of already, made by Furnival, Fleay,
Hallam, and others, and has absolutely nothing to add to
them. He is obliged to concede that Shakespeare had a
hand in the play. He maintains that the German play
was a “ mutilated and barbarised ” version of the play as
we have it, a theory utterly upset by the Messrs. Fuller
and Baker in their thorough examination of the Dutch and
German versions, so that that part of his article is hopelessly
out of date now. Finally he comes to the piece de resistance
of his argument in a comparison of Titus Andronicus with
a play called SelimuSy a poor production, to judge by the
quotations of Dr. Grosart, and, as far as my ear for verse
tells me, written in the old wooden Ti tuniy ti tuniy ti turn
style of verse, such as one finds in Kyd and such writers.

Ixxii

INTRODUCTION

but not in Shakespeare, even in Titus Andronicus. But
the joke is (or one of the jokes, for their name is legion)
that we are by no means sure that this piece is really by
Greene at all^ and, if it were, it is no great credit to him.
But why are we asked to believe that the author of Selimus
wrote Titus Andronicus ? The answer is really too childish.
Because, forsooth, both teem with horrors (as the tragedies
of the period did), and because in both pieces somebody
gets their hands cut off\ If anything could be argued at
all from a coincidence so slight, and a matter which had its
origin in the sources of play, and not in the author’s own
invention, would it not rather be that an author would
rather avoid repeating himself in such point, and that
the plays have different rather than the same authors !
Neither Greene nor anyone else could take out a patent
for this hand-mutilation, which existed, as we see in
old sources, long before Shakespeare’s time or Greene’s,
and which we must remember was still practised in their
time and long after, as it is still east, if not west, of Suez,
This form of argument is really equivalent to saying that
because Barabbas and Shylock were both Jews, the plays
must be by the same authors. By the bye. Dr. Grosart gives
us the astonishing information that Aaron was a Jew. He
says “ Acomat (in Selimus') and Aaron (in Titus Andronicus)
were both Jews!* and so at the same time parodies his own
argument and shows how little he knows of the subject of
which he is treating. Aaron in Titus Andronicus is a Moor,
and that is the point of the story as taken from the com-
bined sources.

The whole article is in the same strain ; arguing, if argu-
ment it can be called, that because Greene has some similar

INTRODUCTION

Ixxiii

incident to those in Titus Andronicus^ only Greene could
have written this play. These plots and incidents, as every
tyro knows, were all common property among Elizabethan
authors, and, as I have already said, on the excellent authority
of Mr. Crawford, who at any rate does know his Titus
Andronicus, Shakespeare borrowed from Greene, so that
even close coincidences would be no proof of Greene’s
authorship. But of close coincidences Dr. Grosart has little
or nothing to give us.

Then comes, what Dr. Grosart seems to regard as a
crowning proof of Greene’s authorship of Titus Andronicus,
a list of twenty-five words, alleged to be found in that play
and in Greene’s works, but not in the acknowledged works
of Shakespeare. If this list were correct it would amount
to very little, that out of so many hundreds and thousands
of words used by these two writers twenty-five should be
common to Greene and Titus Andronicus, We have already
acknowledged, and Mr. Crawford’s parallelisms prove, that
Shakespeare made no bones about borrowing from Greene
much more than mere single words. But the list is very
inaccurate ; it is on the verge of being disingenuous. Cer-
tainly not less than one-half of the words consist either (i) of
words like “architect,” “alphabet,”etc., which, having practic-
ally no synonyms, must be used by any writer if he wishes to
express a certain idea ; (2) of proper names like Enceladus,
Hymenaeus, Progne, and Philomela, which were doubtless
familiar to both writers, and in two out of the four the
difference is merely in form, as Shakespeare has Hymen
and Philomel frequently ; (3) of words which do occur else-
where in Shakespeare, as “continence,” “dandle,” and “dazzle,”
“gad,” “headless,” and “extent”; (4) of words which do

Ixxiv

INTRODUCTION

not occur in Greene, as the form ** bear whelp,” “ devour-
ers,” “passionate” (the verb), and “venereal” Deducting
these words, fifteen in all, we get the grand total of ten
words common to Greene and Titus Andronicus\ This
surely speaks for itself as to the forced feebleness of this
argument.

Into the larger list of “ words used frequently by Greene
and seldom by Shakespeare,” it is useless to enter after this
expose of the other far more significant list.

Finally, Dr. Grosart is forced to admit that Shakespeare
had a hand in the play, and is obliged to throw overboard
the unfavourable opinions of such critical authorities {sic)
as Gerald Massey and Verplanck on the merits of Titus
Andronicus as we have it. He has also to acknowledge
the admirable handling of Tamora, and the resemblances to
other Shakespearian characters. That Greene should come
as a “ private author ” to submit his play to the “ touching
up ” of a younger dramatist like Shakespeare, whom he
envied and hated, is quite inconceivable. The anti-Shake-
spearians must either abide by Ravenscroft and his
“ private ” and' undiscoverable author, or abandon Ravens-
croft, and with him any real or even plausible foundation
for their theories.

But sentiment always dies harder than argument, and
I feel sure the sentimental objection to Shakespeare’s
authorship, on the ground of the revolting incidents in
this play, will be no exception to this rule. At the same
time, it would be waste of energy further to emphasise
or enforce the arguments against this sentimental objection.
Still, for the benefit of those who remain of open mind on
the subject, I would briefly remind them of the character of

INTRODUCTION Ixxv

the Elizabethan drama contemporary with the writing of
Titus Andronicus,

I will give a few quotations, all of which have been
quoted by other editors, but which will serve our turn once
more.

In Haywood’s Apology for Actors he thus describes the
rough-and-tumble sensationalism of the “ Tragedy of Blood.”
“ To see, as I have seen, Hercules, in his own shape, hunt-
ing the boar, knocking down the bull, taming the hart,
murdering Geryon, slaughtering Diomede, wounding the
Stymphalides, killing the Centaurs, pushing the lion, squeez-
ing the dragon, dragging Cerberus in chains, — these were
sights to make an Alexander ! ” The old play of Jeronimo
or Hieronimo ended with the following appetising catologue
of horrors : —

Horatio murdered in his father’s bower,

Vile Serbarine by Pedringano slain,

False Pedringano hang’d by quaint device,

Fair Isabella by herself undone,

Prince Balthazar by Belimperia stabbed.

The Duke of Castile and his wicked son
Both done to death by old Hieronimo,

By Belimperia fallen as Dido fell,

And good Hieronimo slain by himself, —

Aye^ these were spectacles to please my souL

The italics are mine, as I think the line so well exemplifies
the gusto with which the dramatic author weltered in blood,
and the fierce joy with which the audience would applaud
his banquet of horrors. So at the end of the first act of
The Magicall Raigne of Selimus^ Emperor of the Turks^
attributed to Greene, we have the comforting assurance that
“ if the first part, gentles, do like you well, the second part
shall greater wonders tell.”

Ixxvi

INTRODUCTION

If this, then, were the temper of the dramatic writers
and audiences of the time, what wonder that Shakespeare,
a comparative beginner, sought in his own phrase to “ out-
herod Herod '' by selecting a plot so rife with horrors as
Titus Andronicus\ And his selection was justified by
the event, for this play was obviously a great success,
and no doubt laid the foundation of Shakespeare’s reputa-
tion as a writer of Tragedy, just as it also forms the first,
if in some respects the worst, of his great series of “ Roman ”
plays.

There is a point of great importance, but which it is
quite impossible for me to enter upon here with the necessary
fulness; I mean, the question of versification. And the
reason of this is that I am very sceptical of the value of
the usually-employed, what I must be excused calling the
mechanical tests, by which it is sought to discriminate
between what is Shakespeare’s and what is not. As a writer
of hundreds of lines of blank verse myself, which some
critics rightly or wrongly have praised, I confess to feeling
a revolt against such tests as ‘‘ feminine endings,” “ run-on
lines,” “ feminine caesuras,” and so forth, being used as a
decisive test of authorship. One thing I feel perfectly certain
of is, that Marlowe, Shakespeare, and even Milton, and later
Tennyson, Keats, Browning, and Swinburne, never con-
sciously thought of these things, but wrote by ear, as a
musical composer does. But it may, no doubt, be argued
that writers may have an unconscious preference for certain
rhythmic effects without analysing them, and that is per-
fectly true. But would any of these analytic measurers of
Shakespeare’s verse undertake to distinguish by their rules
between the blank verse of Milton, Keats, Tennyson,

INTRODUCTION Ixxvii

Browning, or Swinburne ? I greatly doubt it, and yet these
all write blank verse with a difference, which to the trained
ear is often very marked. The fact is that so many
phonetic elements, alliteration, assonance, and other con-
sonantal or vocal juxtapositions, enter into the structure of
blank verse, that it would require a far more delicate and
complex verse-analysis to give anything like an adequate
test, which could be relied upon to distinguish between
the verse of one writer and another. But this complex
verse-analysis has never been thoroughly worked out. I
have given a great deal of attention to it myself, and intend
to return to it again as soon as possible ; but my results
are not ripe enough to be applied with confidence to the
present case, and even to explain my method would take
far too long on this occasion.

But let not the reader imagine that I am making light
of these mechanical tests because they make against Shake-
speare’s authorship of Titus Andronicus, On the contrary,
Professor Schrder^ has gone into this matter very thor-
oughly, and, so far as he arrives at any positive results, they
favour Shakespeare’s authorship.

Now I fancy every expert in verse, just as an expert in
any other art, would fancy that he could distinguish in the
great majority of cases between the works of different
masters. What, for example, would be the Olympian
wrath of an art-critic if one told him he could not tell a
Velasquez from a Rembrandt, a Constable from a Turner,
and so forth ! So, I think, a literary expert might be
justifiably wroth if told he could not distinguish between
the verse of Tennyson and Browning, Milton and Keats

1 Ueher Titus Andronicus^ p. 31, etc.

Ixxviii INTRODUCTION

Shelley or Byron. No doubt every line or verse is not
intensely characteristic of its author; but, given a fair
number of examples and quotations of sufficient length,
I am inclined to think the expert would be very frequently
right.

Now, having tried to write nearly every known form of
English verse and experimented in new ones, I think I may
without vanity claim to be an expert in regard to versifica-
tion ; and I therefore think that my impressions of the verse
of this play may not be without value.

The versification of this play varies considerably, being
at times somewhat humdrum, but never bad^ never quite
so mechanical as to suggest the possibility of so wooden
and defective a metrist as Kyd having any hand in it. On
the other hand, there are a good many passages of great
metrical beauty, a metrical beauty such that taken in con-
nection with their other merits, it appears to me that there
were only two men who could have written them — Marlowe
or Shakespeare. Now the play as a whole cannot be by
Marlowe, because he cannot be the “ private author of the
Ravenscroft invention, nor is it conceivable that had
Marlowe written it Shakespeare would not have been suf-
fered to rob him, as in that case he must have done, of all
the credit of such a successful play. The same argument
applies to Greene, as shown above, and I personally think
these passages are beyond Greene, even at his best, and
Greene's blank verse has . to my ear a more mechanical
rhythm than either Marlowe’s or Shakespeare’s.

To revert for a moment to more obvious points in
versification, such as the presence of rhymed couplets, faulty
or broken lines, and matters of accentuation and pronuncia-

INTRODUCTION

Ixxix

tion, I think I may safely and broadly assert that the play
shows nothing that militates against Shakespeare's author-
ship. In fact, in all these points the practices of the author of
Titus Andronicus and of Shakespeare in his later and greater
plays will be found to agree. The rhymed couplets, for in-
stance, are generally used to clinch some important point in
the argument, or as a finish at the end of a scene, act, or
important speech. The occurrence of four-feet and six-feet
lines instead of the ordinary five-feet line is by no means
confined to this play, as will be found by reference to
Abbott's Grammar and similar books, and the same may
be said of broken lines, which usually mark passages of
high excitement. So that any inferences to be drawn from
these practices or defects tell only in favour rather than
against Shakespeare’s claim.

I have pointed out in the notes to this play that there
is a great difficulty in making out a consistent time-scheme
for the action, especially between the first and second Acts,
where an interval seems absolutely necessary ; but it is im-
possible, unless we adopt the somewhat awkward hypothesis
that there were two great huntings, instead of one, to work
out a logical time-scheme. But this is only of a piece with
Shakespeare's treatment of the time element in his other
plays, where he seems quite regardless of consistency in this
respect, and conforms the time to the necessities of the
story, quite apart from actual probabilities and possibilities ;
so that this fault, if fault it be, only serves to confirm
Shakespeare's authorship.^ The fact is, Shakespeare wrote

^ P. A. Daniel, “Time Analysis of Titus Andronicus,” New Skak. Ser.y
Series I. pt. ii. vol. vi. p. i88. Edward Rose, “The Inconsistency of Time in
Shakespearfe’s Plays,” NewShak. Soc,, Series I. vol viii. p. 33.

Ixxx INTRODUCTION

for his audiences, and not for the student and critic in the
closet. In the rush of passion and action in such a drama
no audience whatever would pause to notice, still less to
discuss, such discrepancies. But what is extremely remark-
able is that while Shakespeare sets at nought the proba-
bilities and even possibilities of time and place, still more
the so-called unities of time and space, no dramatic author
so well exemplifies the essential conditions of Aristotle’s
doctrine of what Tragedy is and ought to be. So much so
that in lecturing on Aristotle’s Poetics to my class, I
was not only able, I was indeed often compelled, to use
examples from Shakespeare, as the best illustrations of what
is most essential in Aristotle’s doctrine. At the same time,
Shakespeare avoids the one salient error of Aristotle’s
theory, the undue exaltation of the “ fable ” over the “ char-
acterisation.” Indeed, were one to go on internal evidence
alone, one would be tempted to argue that Shakespeare
must have had access to Aristotle’s Treatise. This he may
have obtained, either through a Latin version, or through
conversations with Ben Jonson, who, being a good scholar,
could read the original.

I have treated the question of the authorship of this play
very fully ; because, as I have already indicated, there lies the
key of the whole position regarding the authorship of the
Shakespearian plays. The man who wrote Titus Andronicus^
in what we may call his dramatic youth, had undoubtedly
sufficient classical and other learning, sufficient literary and
poetic ability, ample psychologic acumen and dramatic genius
to have written in his maturity all the masterpieces asso-
ciated with the name of Shakespeare. If it was not the
same man who wrote the great tragedies attributed to

INTRODUCTION Ixxxi

Shakespeare, it was a man of kindred, if not equal, genius.
It was a man, moreover, whose outlook on life was strangely
similar to that we find developed in the later plays. That
there were two men so greatly gifted living at the same
time, the one unknown and obscure, the other already
famous, is an hypothesis too grotesque to be worth a
moment’s consideration. Or that the obscure man could
have supplied the famous man with all these great plays
without this prolonged and gigantic fraud being discovered
is quite, to my mind, beyond the bounds of possibility.
Surrounded by jealous and bitter rivals as Shakespeare was,
such a fraud must have been immediately exposed. All I
ask of the reader is, that he clear his mind of the cant and
prejudice which will not listen to argument because the
play is not to their taste, and therefore “ cannot be by
Shakespeare.” Shakespeare’s greatness lies greatly in this,
that he took a wider and larger grip of the whole facts of
life and human experience than any other author. In
doing so he had to include the horrible, the criminal, and
the revolting, just as he had in another direction to include
the impure as well as the pure, the coarse and the obscene
as well as the refined and the noble. Now I know this
will seem to many very shocking, like many of the daily
facts of life, but I say that it is impossible for any author
to represent life in its totality, unless he is allowed a like
moral range. Scott, for instance, will always seem limited
in his presentment of life compared with Homer, Chaucer,
Shakespeare, and even Fielding. It is not mere prurience
that takes us to Rabelais and Boccaccio, or to the coarser
poems of Dunbar and Burns. It is that we feel that these
authors are holding nothing back from us, and are painting
/

Ixxxii

INTRODUCTION

life as it is, beneath the veneer of civilisation and conven-
tional morals. No doubt these authors emphasise this
lower side of human nature, but they help to fill out that
picture of life which it is the function of literature to pre-
sent Shakespeare stands almost, if not quite, alone in his
extraordinary moral range from the lowest, the most
horrible, the most villainous, up to characters which unite
the sweetness of indubitable womanhood with the endurance
of the martyr and the purity of the angel. In his early
plays Shakespeare does not reach these heights ; though
Lavinia {pace Mr. Symons), as a first study in pure suffering
womanhood, is not unworthy of the future creator of
Cordelia and Imogen.

There remains to me only the pleasant business of
thanking those scholars and gentlemen to whom I have
been so largely indebted for assistance in my labours on
this play.

1 will begin with Mr. W. J. Craig, the general Editor of
the Arden Series, whose indefatigable zeal in revising and
supplementing my notes to the play I cannot too warmly
acknowledge. Next in order I would name my friend,
Professor Arnold Schroer, formerly of Freiburg (in Breisgau)
University, and now in the Handels-Hochschule in Cologne.
My indebtedness to Professor Schroer dates back to my
Freiburg days when I attended his lectures — some of
them on Shakespeare’s plays — and had much interesting
converse with him on such matters. But in the present
case I have received help from him in several ways.
In the first place, his treatise on this play, already referred
to more than once, has been of great service to me,
and is in my opinion one of the soundest and most

INTRODUCTION Ixxxiii

scholarly utterances on the subject with which I am
acquainted. In the next place, I have to thank him for
putting at my disposal not only his rich private library,
but also that in the English Seminar of the Handels-
Hochschule in Cologne. Further, I am in his debt for
valuable criticisms and advice regarding this work, and
especially this Introduction.

Next in order I must put on record the generosity
displayed by Mr. Charles Crawford in putting at my
disposal his wonderful acquaintance with Elizabethan litera-
ture. I was not previously known to Mr. Crawford, and
we have never met, but he has spared no trouble, not only
in giving me the benefit of his researches, but in writing me
fully on various interesting points.

My work on this play demanded that I should have
all the literature of the subject at hand, a matter perhaps
impossible in any one place except the British Museum. I
am therefore glad of this opportunity of mentioning the
great consideration and courtesy with which I have been
treated, not only by the library officials in my own
University of St. Andrews and in University College,
Dundee, but also those of the University of Edinburgh, who
kindly lent me works of great value for my purpose.

Nor should I feel justified in closing this list of thank-
offerings without mention of the assistance I received
from Mr. Appleton Morgan's admirable Introduction to
this play in the Bankside Shakespeare^ and to Mr, Arthur
Symons for his trenchant and stimulating preface to the
Facsimile Edition of this drama. I have learnt much from
the other articles, too numerous to mention here, to which
I make reference in the notes to this Introduction, or to

Ixxxiv

INTRODUCTION

the text of the play. Nor should I neglect to acknow-
ledge the invaluable assistance received from such works
as The New English Dictionary^ Schmidt’s Shakespeare
Lexicon^ Abbott’s Grammar^ and Bartlett’s Concordance,

It may, perhaps, be better to guard against any pos-
sibility of misapprehension on the part of my readers, if
I conclude by restating in few words exactly what my
position is regarding this much-disputed play.

I do not think I take up an extreme, still less an
untenable, position when I say that I believe — for absolute
proof is out of the question — that Titus Andronicus, in the
version which we have, is essentially and substantially the
work of the same author as the later and greater plays
which were, in common with it, attributed to Shakespeare
during his lifetime. I do not maintain that every line and
passage is Shakespeare’s own original writing. But I do
hold that the play, as a whole, betrays, not only in detail,
but perhaps still more in the general structure and modelling,
in its characterisation, its outlook on life, and what I call its
“ moral resultant,” such unmistakable signs of the same
Active and creative powers, which we find in perfection
in his acknowledged masterpieces, that we must hold him
responsible, whether we like it or no, for the drama as
it stands.

TITUS

ANDRONICUS

DRAMATIS PERSONS

Saturninus, Son to the late Emperor of Rome^ and afterwards
declared Emperor,

Bassianus, Brother to Saturninus^ in love with Lavinia.

Titus Andronicus, a noble Rofnan^ General against the Goths,
Marcus Andronicus, Tribune of the People^ and Brother to Titus,
Lucius,

Quintus, I Titus Andronicus.

Martius, I
Mutius, J

Young Lucius, a Boy, Son to Lucius.

Publius, Son to Marcus Andronicus.

Sempronius,^

Caius, Kinsmen to Titus.

Valentine, J
^MiLius, a noble Roman.

Alarbus, 'I

Demetrius, V Sons to Tamora.

Chiron, J

Aaron, a Moor, beloved by Tamora.

A Captain, Tribufie^ Messenger, and Clown.

Goths and Roma?is.

Tamora, Queen of the Goths.

Lavinia, Daughter to Titus Andronicus.

A Nurse, and a black Child.

Senators, Tribunes, Officers, Soldiers, and Attendants.

Scene : Rome, and the Country near it.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

ACT I

SCENE 1. — Rome,

The Tomb of the Andronici appearing. The Tribunes and
Senators aloft ; and then enter Saturninus and his
Followers at one door^ and Bassianus and his Followers
at the other y with drum and colours.

Sat, Noble patricians, patrons of my right,

Defend the justice of my cause with arms ;

And, countrymen, my loving followers,

Plead my successive title with your swords :

I am his first-born son, that was the last 5

That wore the imperial diadem of Rome ;

Then let my father’s honours live in me,

Nor wrong mine age with this indignity.

Bass. Romans, friends, followers, favourers of my right,

4. successive^ legitimate, in due sue- 8. age'\ seniority, i.e. deprive me of
cession to his father. Vide 2 Henry what is due me as the elder son. A form
VI. III. i. 49 ; Hamlet, v. ii. 284. of half-personification or synecdoche
Steevens quotes a like use of it from very common in Shakespeare.

Raleigh. 9. Romans, friends, followers, etc,'\

5. hts first-born . . . that} A con- It is well to note how carefully the

struction no longer allowable in characters of the two brothers are dis-
English = I am the first-born son of tii^uished from the first, and the
him who was the last, etc. “That” different style of their address to their
for modem “ who ” is frequent in followers. Bassianus speaks in that
Shakespeare. strain of aristocratic republicanism

4

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[ACT I.

If ever Bassianus, Csesar’s son, lo

Were gracious in the eyes of royal Rome,

Keep then this passage to the Capitol,

And suffer not dishonour to approach
The imperial seat, to virtue consecrate,

To justice, continence, and nobility ; 15

But let desert in pure election shine,

And, Romans, fight for freedom in your choice.

Enter MARCUS ANDRONICUS, aloft^ with the crown.

Marc. Princes, that strive by factions and by friends
Ambitiously for rule and empery.

Know that the people of Rome, for whom we stand 20
A special party, have by common voice,

In election for the Roman empery.

Chosen Andronicus, surnamed Pius,

For many good and great deserts to Rome.

A nobler man, a braver warrior, 25

Lives not this day within the city walls :

He by the senate is accited home

which we find both in Julius Caesar
and Coriolanus. Saturninus, a despic-
able character throughout, appeals
merely to his right by primogeniture.

12. Keep] defend, hold.

15. continence] may either have a
rather broader meaning than that we
now give it = self-mastery, or may be in
allusion to known defects in his brother’s
character. The New Eng. Diet, quotes
from Elyot : * ‘ Continence is a virtue
which keepeth the plesaunt appetite of
man under the yoke of reason.”

16. pure election] free choice, apart
from the considerations of birth, which
were in favour of his brother.

19. empery] rule, absolute sway,
Henry V. I. ii. 226.

21. special party] as representatives.
Party in Shakespeare means cause, in-
terest, party (in political or military
sense), and never has the (vulgar)
modern use = person.

22. In election., etc.] This seems to
mean, not that Titus was finally elected
Emperor, but w^as put forward as can-
didate by the people, as distinguished
from the Patricians, the Senate, etc.
He was merely candidatus, as Marcus
says in a later speech.

24. deserts] merit, good deeds, as in
Marlowe’s Tainburlaine, “ If you
retain desert of holiness,” New. Eng.
Diet.

27. accited] summoned. This and
other slightly pedantic words in the

SC I ] TITUS ANDRONICUS 6

From weary wars against the barbarous Goths ;

That, with his sons, a terror to our foes.

Hath yok’d a nation strong, train’d up in arms. 30
Ten years are spent since first he undertook
This cause of Rome, and chastised with arms
Our enemies’ pride : five times he hath return’d
Bleeding to Rome, bearing his valiant sons
In coffins from the field. 35

And now at last, laden with honour’s spoils,

Returns the good Andronicus to Rome,

Renowned Titus, flourishing in arms.

Let us entreat, by honour of his name.

Whom worthily you would have now succeed, 40
And in the Capitol and senate’s right,

Whom you pretend to honour and adore,

That you withdraw you and abate your strength ;
Dismiss your followers, and, as suitors should,

Plead your deserts in peace and humbleness. 45

Sat, How fair the tribune speaks to calm my thoughts !
Bass, Marcus Andronicus, so I do affy
In thy uprightness and integrity,

And so I love and honour thee and thine,

Thy noble brother Titus and his sons, 50

And her to whom my thoughts are humbled all,

play, used in their purely classic sense,
have been cited as arguments against
Shakespeare’s authorship. But we find
the same thing in other plays, such
as Macbeth^ where such words as
‘ ‘ convince ” = overcome, ‘ ‘ inform ” =
shape (Lat. informare) are quite
common.

29. Tha/\ who, or he who. Very
common in Shakespeare. See Abbott,
pars. 258, etc.

30. yok'cT^ brought under the yoke,
as Two Gentkmen of Verona ^ I. i. 40 ;
1 Henry VI, il. iii. 64.

42. pretend'] profess, claim. As in
the original meaning of “The Pre-
tender ”= claimant, whether justly or
no.

47. affy] confide in ; occurs in S
Henry VI, iv. i. = betroth. New
Eng, Diet, has “ so greatly she affied
him,” Turberville.

6 T^ITUS ANDRONICUS [acti.

Gracious Lavinia, Rome’s rich ornament,

That I will here dismiss my loving friends,

And to my fortunes and the people’s favour
Commit my cause in balance to be weigh’d. 5 S

\Exeunt the Followers of Bassianus.
Sat, Friends, that have been thus forward in my right,

I thank you all and here dismiss you all ;

And to the love and favour of my country
Commit myself, my person, and the cause.

[Exeunt the Followers of Saturninus,
Rome, be as just and gracious unto me 6 o

As I am confident and kind to thee.

Open the gates, and let me in.

Bass, Tribunes, and me, a poor competitor.

[Flourish, They go up into the Senate-house,

Enter a Captain,

Cap, Romans, make way ! the good Andronicus,

Patron of virtue, Rome’s best champion, 65

Successful in the battles that he fights,

With honour and with fortune is return’d
From where he circumscribed with his sword,

And brought to yoke, the enemies of Rome.

52. Gracious] has numerous mean-
ings in Shakespeare — (i) kind, (2)
agreeable, (3) holy, (4) fortunate, (5)
lovely, (6) condescending (applied to
kings, etc.) ; but here either (3) or (5).
Schmidt.

55» 59* cause] the decision, or trial
of the matter, as often elsewhere in
Shakespeare. Richard III, III. v. 66.

61. confident] confiding. See New
Eng, Diet, “ Kind ” may mean kindly
disposed, or it may mean near in

blood, as the eldest son of the late
Emperor.

63. a poor competitor] either poor in
having no wealthy or influential back-
ing, as his brother had, or a mere touch
of mock humility, in order to curry
favour with the tribunes and people.

68. circumscribed] restrained, limited,
as in Hamlet^ I. iii. 22 . New Eng.
Diet, gives Defoe, Robinson Crusoe ^
ix. 185 (ed. 1840), “I was alone
circumscribed by the ocean.”

TITUS ANDRONICUS

7

sc. I.]

Sound drums and trumpets^ and then enter Martius and
Mutius ; after them two Men bearing a coffin covered
with black; then LUCIUS and QuiNTUS. After
them Titus AndroNICUS ; and then Tamora, with
Alarbus, Chiron, Demetrius, Aaron, and other
Goths ^ prisoners ; Soldiers and People following.
They set down the coffin, and Titus speaks.

Tit Hail, Rome, victorious in thy mourning weeds ! 70

Lo ! as the bark, that hath discharg’d her fraught.
Returns with precious lading to the bay
From whence at first she weigh’d her anchorage,
Cometh Andronicus, bound with laurel boughs,

To re-salute his country with his tears, 75

Tears of true joy for his return to Rome.

Thou great defender of this Capitol,

Stand gracious to the rites that we intend !

Romans, of five-and-twenty valiant sons,

Half of the number that King Priam had, 80

Behold the poor remains, alive, and dead 1
These that survive let Rome reward with love ;

70. thy mourning weeds\ Warburton
very unnecessarily suggests “ my.” He
and other commentators seem to forget
that Titus was not the only one, by
many, who had lost sons and other near
relations in the war, as Lord Roberts
was not the only bereaved parent in the
South African War,

71. fraught^ Modern English freight.
Fraught is cognate with New High
German fracht ; freight with Old High
German freht. Some old MSS. have
*‘his,” but “her’^ is obviously right,
as it stands in both Q i and F i.

73. anchorage^ anchor, by the
rhetorical figure of synecdoche, where-
by the abstract or general is used for

the concrete and particular ; a common
figure in Shakespeare.

77. Thou groat defenderl Jupiter
Capitolinus.

78. Stand gracious] take a gracious
attitude towards, regard with favour.
See “gracious,” above.

79. fivo-anddwenty] The number
given here compared with the “ twenty-
two, who in Honour’s bed” (Act ill.
i. 10), shows that Shakespeare had in-
vented the Mutius episode and forgot-
ten to alter the original number; for
twenty-two, with Mutius, Quintus and
Martius, and Lucius, who survives, =
twenty-six. I am indebted for this
valuable point to Mr. C. Crawford.

8

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.

These that I bring unto their latest home,

With burial amongst their ancestors. 84

Here Goths have given me leave to sheathe my sword.
Titus, unkind and careless of thine own,

Why suffer’st thou thy sons, unburied yet,

To hover on the dreadful shore of Styx ?

Make way to lay them by their brethren.

\The tomb is opened.
There greet in silence, as the dead are wont, 90

And sleep in peace, slain in your country's wars !

O sacred receptacle of my joys.

Sweet cell of virtue and nobility,

How many sons of mine hast thou in store.

That thou wilt never render to me more ! 95

Luc. Give us the proudest prisoner of the Goths,

That we may hew his limbs, and on a pile
Ad manes fratrum sacrifice his flesh.

Before this earthy prison of their bones ;

That so the shadows be not unappeas'd, lOO

85. Here\ at this point, now. in the mouth of the Antiquary. Shake-

92. receptacle] pronounced, here and speare himself, in Lovers Labour s Lost,
generally in Shakespeare, receptacle, shows even greater familiarity with this
with main accent on the penultimate sort of thing.

syllable. Cf. Romeo and Juhet^ IV. 99. earthy] F i, “earthly.” Earthy
iii. 39. probably right, as more graphic.

94) 95. store . . . more] The rhymes 100. shadows] shades of the dead,
here are no argument against Shake- It is one of the beliefs common to all
speare’s authorship, as he never quite folk-lore, down to this era of modern
lost his fondness for ending an important Tsychical Research Societies, that the
speech or scene with one or more rhymed ghost, manes, or shade did not rest
couplets. until (i) properly buried, and (2)

98. Ad manes fratrum] Some have until avenged or propitiated. The
tried to make an anti-Shakespearian killing of Alarbus, though so revolting
argument from the Latin tags used in to modern ideas, was therefore not
this play. But as none of them are unnatural in pagan Rome, noted, even
beyond the reach of a schoollxiy's in its highest civilisation, for its cruelty
picking up, there is nothing to be based and love of bloodshed. Cf. Cymbeline,
on this. Sir Walter Scott, no great v. iv. 97.
classic, can give us pages of Latin tags

TITUS ANDRONICUS

9

sc. I.]

Nor we disturb’d with prodigies on earth.

Tit, I give him you, the noblest that survives,

The eldest son of this distressed queen.

Tam, Stay, Roman brethren ! Gracious conqueror,

Victorious Titus, rue the tears I shed, 105

A mother’s tears in passion for her son :

And if thy sons were ever dear to thee,

O ! think my son to be as dear to me.

Sufhceth not that we are brought to Rome,

To beautify thy triumphs and return, 1 10

Captive to thee and to thy Roman yoke ;

But must my sons be slaughter’d in the streets
For valiant doings in their country’s cause?

O ! if to fight for king and commonweal

Were piety in thine, it is in these. 115

Andronicus, stain not thy tomb withj blood :

Wilt thou draw nearTHe nature of the gods ?

Draw near them then in being merciful ;

Sweet mercy is nobility’s true badge :

Thrice-noble Titus, spare my first-born son. 120

Tit, Patient yourself, madam, and pardon me.

106. passion] suffering, grief, the
strict meaning of the Latin passio.

109. Sufficeth] does it not suffice.

1 17. Wilt thou draw near^ etc.] No
one can fail to be struck by the ex-
traordinary resemblance between these
lines and the famous eulogy of mercy
in Portia’s speech in the Merchant of
Venice. Inferior as they are to the
celebrated passage, they seem to contain
the germs of it, and also to exhibit that
kind of moral or religious anachronism
into which Shakespeare so frequently
falls in this and other plays. For the
pagan gods were not merciful gods
whatever they were, and mercy as a
divine attribute has come to us entirely

from Judaism through Christianity, and
indeed in Judaism itself it was a com-
paratively late development, except in
the narrow sense of special favour
shown to a tribe or person. Tamora’s
speech here is to my thinking very fine
indeed, and not unworthy of Snake-
speare at any time of his career. It is
the rejection of her noble appeal to
Titus that brings the first and fatal
elements of tragedy into the play, and
turns her into a fury. Steevens quotes
a similar sentiment from Cicero pro
Ligario. But the Latin salutem =
health, welfare, is by no means the
same as mercy.

1 21. Patient] school yourself to

10

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.

These are their brethren, whom you Goths beheld
Alive and dead, and for their brethren slain
Religiously they ask a sacrifice :

To this your son is mark'd, and die he must, 12$
To appease their groaning shadows that are gone.

Luc, Away with him ! and make a fire straight ;

And with our swords, upon a pile of wood,

Let 's hew his limbs till they be clean consum'd.

[Exeunt Lucius^ Quintus^ Martius,
and MutiuSy with Alarbus.
Tam, O cruel, irreligious piety ! 130

Chi, Was ever Scythia half so barbarous?

Dem, Oppose not Scythia to ambitious Rome.

Alarbus goes to rest, and we survive
To tremble under Titus' threatening look.

Then, madam, stand resolv'd ; but hope withal 135
The self - same gods that arm'd the Queen of
Troy

With opportunity of sharp revenge
Upon the Thracian tyrant in his tent,

patience. Steevens quotes similar use 132. Oppose] compare, from the
from Arden of Faver shanty 1591 ; ICing literal meaning of the Latin opponere
Edward III, y 1596, etc. =to set over against; another proof

130. O cruely etc.] I should like to of knowledge of Latin.

know how many poets or dramatists, 133. Alarbus] Alarbus is an in-
except Shakespeare himself, could have sertion of Shakespeare’s own, as in
written this magnificent line. How the earlier versions of the story, in the
much of “man’s inhumanity to man’’ ballad and the earlier play or plays, on
in almost every age is covered and which the Dutch and German were
condemned by this comprehensive and founded, Tam ora has only two sons,
perfect phrase I See Intioduction.

131. Was ever Scythia] See Mr. 136. Queen of Troy]

Craig’s note on Lear, i. i. 1 16, Arden 138. Thracian tyrant] Polymnestor.
Shakespeare, where he refers to Steevens and Theobald differ as to
Purchas’ Pilgrim on Cannibalisniy whether Shakespeare here alludes to the
the practice of which, as described by Plecuba of Euripides or from a mis-
Herodotus, gave the Scythians their reading of Ovid. I do not think much
reputation for barbarism. can be made of these supposed allusions

TITUS ANDRONICUS

11

sc. I.]

May favour Tamora, the Queen of Goths,

(When Goths were Goths, and Tamora was queen) 140
To quit the bloody wrongs upon her foes.

Re-enter LuciUS, QuiNTUS, Martius, and MUTIUS,
with their swords bloody,

Luc, See, lord and father, how we have perform’d
Our Roman rites. Alarbus’ limbs are lopp’d,

And entrails feed the sacrificing fire.

Whose smoke, like incense, doth perfume the sky. 145
Remaineth nought but to inter our brethren,

And with loud ’larums welcome them to Rome.

Tit, Let it be so ; and let Andronicus

Make this his latest farewell to their souls.

{Trumpets sounded, and the coffin laid in the tomb.
In peace and honour rest you here, my sons ; 150

Rome’s readiest champions, repose you here in rest,
Secure from worldly chances and mishaps !

Here lurks no treason, here no envy swells.

Here grow no damned drugs, here are no storms.

to Greek plays as then untranslated ; for
it is clear that both dramatic authors
and their audiences were familiar with
the “plots” of the classical plays;
vide the allusion to Hecuba in Hamlet,
This story, for instance, is told in
Virgil’s yEnetd, where Shakespeare
could read it for himself, or in Phaer’s
translation.

144. entrails'^ The “his” is here
elided. Shakespeare and other Eliza-
bethan writers often add vigour to their
language by the omission of words
readily understood by the reader. Even
nominatives, especially personal pro-
nouns, following Latin, were often
elided. See Abbott’s Grammar, pars.
399-402.

147. ^laf^ms] warlike din. See
New Eng. Dut,

150. In peace and honour, etc.] a
very fine passage, admirably finished off
by the repetition of the opening line
at the end like a refrain, a device
freely used by Tennyson in his blank
verse.

1 51. Romds readiest champions, etc,]
This line, like so many Shakespearian
lines, must be read with a “slur” or
crushing of the syllables “ champions
re” into one foot of the verse, the
strong accent or stress on the first
syllable of “champions” carrying us
readily over the half - syllable (grace
note) “re” to the next accent on
“ pose.”

12

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.

IS5

No noise, but silence and eternal sleep.

In peace and honour rest you here, my sons !

Enter Lavinia.

Lav. In peace and honour live Lord Titus long ;

My noble lord and father, live in fame !

Lo ! at this tomb my tributary tears
I render for my brethren’s obsequies ; 1 6o

And at thy feet I kneel, with tears of joy
Shed on the earth for thy return to Rome.

O ! bless me here with thy victorious hand.

Whose fortune Rome’s best citizens applaud.

Tit Kind Rome, that hast thus lovingly reserv’d 165

The cordial of mine age to glad my heart !

Lavinia, live ; outlive thy father’s days.

And fame’s eternal date, for virtue’s praise !

Enter Marcus Andronicus and Tribunes ; re-enter
Saturninus, Bassianus, and Others.

Marc. Long live Lord Titus, my beloved brother.

Gracious triumpher in the eyes of Rome ! 170

Tit Thanks, gentle tribune, noble brother Marcus.

Marc. And welcome, nephews, from successful wars.

You that survive, and you that sleep in fame !

Fair lords, your fortunes are alike in all,

165. Kind Rome, etc.'\ The terrible been very gratuitous difficulty made
irony of this passage, in view of what fol- about this phrase. The expression is,
lows, is by no means un*Shakespearian. of course, hyperbolic, but so are the

166. cordial] not in the literal sense double superlatives common in Shake-
of medicine, but of anything pleasing speare. “Date” here and in Sonnets,
and comforting to the heart and feelings, xiv. 14 = the appointed time. The

166. glad] gladden, as S Henry VI. meaning is that he wishes Lavinia, or at
IV. vi. 93, from O.E. gladian, and least her reputation for virtue, to out-
much the commoner form up to the last what we call “eternal fame.”
nineteenth century, Nm. Eng. Diet. 170. triumpher] pronounced tri-

168. fame's eternal date] There has limpher.

sc. I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 13

That in your country’s service drew your swords ; 175
But safer triumph is this funeral pomp,

That hath aspir’d to Solon’s happiness,

And triumphs over chance in honour’s bed.

Titus Andronicus, the people of Rome,

Whose friend in justice thou hast ever been, 180
Send thee by me, their tribune and their trust,

This palliament of white and spotless hue ;

And name thee in election for the empire.

With these our late-deceased emperor’s sons ;

Be candidatus then, and put it on, 185

And help to set a head on headless Rome.

Tit, A better head her glorious body fits

Than his that shakes for age and feebleness.

What should I don this robe, and trouble you,

Be chosen with proclamations to-day, 1 90

To-morrow yield up rule, resign my life,

177. Solaris happiness'] refers to the
saying of Solon, usually rendered
“Call no man happy till he is dead,”
but perhaps the author was thinking also
of the converse proverb, “ Those the
gods love die young.”

182. palliament] cloak (pallium), a
curious coinage peculiar to this play.
Some have used it as an argument
against Shakespeare’s authorship. But
it is used by Peele {Honour of the Garter^
lines 91, 92) ; and as Shakespeare freely
borrowed words and phrases that took
his fancy, this affords no argument
against his authorship of this play. Mr.
Henry Bradley thinks it is connected
with paludamentum, a military cloak,
either by analogy in the formation or a
confusion between the two words. The
description in the text recalls the long
white cloak still worn by Austrian
officers.

183. name thee in election^ etc,]

means that Titus was nominated as
candidate, but not yet elected.

188. Than his that shakes^ etc,] Not,
I think, to be taken literally, but said to
put colour on his declinature in favour
of a young man. His swift killing
of his son Mutius shows he was still
vigorous, and some of the later scenes
would have been laughed off the stage,
if enacted by a feeble old man, as some
critics will have him, founding solely on
this rhetorical exaggeration. Besides,
of course, when he cuts the throats of
Chiron and Demetrius, they are already
gagged and bound by Publius and
others. See Introduction and later note.

189. don] do on, put on. The mark
of interrogation at the end of this line,
as usually printed, is wrong, as the ques-
tion continues to “you all,” where both
F I and Q i have a period. But the
sentence is obviously either an inter-
rogation or, at least, an exclamation.

14

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.

And set abroad new business for you all ?

Rome, I have been thy soldier forty years,

And led my country’s strength successfully.

And buried one-and -twenty valiant sons, 195

Knighted in field, slain manfully in arms.

In right and service of their noble country.

Give me a staff of honour for mine age.

But not a sceptre to control the world :

Upright he held it, lords, that held it last. 200

Marc. Titus, thou shalt obtain and ask the empery.

Sat. Proud and ambitious tribune, canst thou tell ?

Tit. Patience, Prince Saturninus.

Sat. Romans, do me right :

Patricians, draw your swords, and sheathe them not
Till Saturninus be Rome’s emperor. 205

Andronicus, would thou wert shipp’d to hell.

Rather than rob me of the people’s hearts !

Luc. Proud Saturnine, interrupter of the good
That noble-minded Titus means to thee !

Tit. Content thee, prince; I will restore to thee 210

The people’s hearts, and wean them from themselves.
Bass. Andronicus, I do not flatter thee,

195. one-and-twenty\ The number
here is corrected. See above, 79.

201. obtain and ask'\ an even bolder
inversion than the famous “burial and
death,” indicating better than any other
form of words the certainty of Titus’
election. No nameless amateur, such as
the Ravenscroft theory supposes, would
have ventured on such a bold expression.

206. skipfd'] consigned, sent off.
The character of Saturninus is very
subtly drawn and well contrasted with
that of his brother Bassianus. He is
essentially weak, and, consequently, in-
effectually violent. And one of the

subtle points of the play lies in repre-
senting Titus, like Lear, as extremely
blind as a judge of character, and as
only becoming acute during or after his
supposed or partial madness. Had he
seen the superiority of Bassianus to
Saturninus, and not densely decided
from the merits of their common father,
the whole catastrophe would have been
avoided. See Introduction.

207. Rather than rob] an elliptical ex-
pression for “ rather than you should. ”

208. interrupter] int’rupter, or slurred
as above, “champion re.”

212. Andronicus] It is instructive to

TITUS ANDRONICUS

15

sc. I.]

But honour thee, and will do till I die :

My faction if thou strengthen with thy friends,

I will most thankful be ; and thai^ks to men 215
Of noble minds is honourable meed.

Tit, People of Rome, and noble tribunes here,

I ask your voices and your suffrages :

Will you bestow them friendly on Andronicus ?
Tribunes, To gratify the good Andronicus, 2 20

And gratulate his safe return to Rome,

The people will accept whom he admits.

Tit, Tribunes, I thank you ; and this suit I make.

That you create your emperor’s eldest son,

Lord Saturnine; whose virtues will, I hope, 225

Reflect on Rome as Titan’s rays on earth.

And ripen justice in this commonweal :

Then, if you will elect by my advice,

Crown him, and say Long live our emperor ! ”

Marc, With voices and applause of every sort, 230

Patricians and plebeians, we create
Lord Saturninus Rome’s great emperor,

And say “ Long live our Emperor Saturnine ! ”

\A long flourish.

Sat, Titus Andronicus, for thy favours done

To us in our election this day, 235

I give thee thanks in part of thy deserts,

notice the licence taken in the scansion 224. your emperor's eldest son] Here
of proper names, Andronicus in the comes in Titus’ vital error which sows
first line being differently scanned from the dragon’s teeth of tragedy ; his error
the same word in the next. In the of judgment in handing over impetu-
first it is in the second w-,,-, ously the Roman Empire to a man

or taking accents, Andronicus and whose defective character had already
Andrdnicus. been displayed in the few speeches he

214. friends] in both Q i and F i had made.

“friend,” but the final s may easily 226. Reflect] shine; bend or direct,
have dropped out. Lucrece^ 376; Richard III, \. iv. 31.

16

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.

And will with deeds requite thy gentleness :

And for an onset, Titus, to advance
Thy name and honourable family,

Lavinia will I make my empress, 240

Rome’s royal mistress, mistress of my heart,

And in the sacred Pantheon her espouse.

Tell me, Andronicus, doth this motion please thee ?
TiU It doth, my worthy lord ; and in this match

I hold me highly honour’d of your grace: 245

And here in sight of Rome to Saturnine,

King and commander of our commonweal,

The wide world’s emperor, do I consecrate
My sword, my chariot, and my prisoners ;

Presents well worthy Rome’s imperious lord: 250

Receive them then, the tribute that I owe.

Mine honour’s ensigns humbled at thy feet.

Sat Thanks, noble Titus, father of my life !

How proud I am of thee and of thy gifts

Rome shall record, and when I do forget 255

The least of these unspeakable deserts,

Romans, forget your fealty to me.

Tit. \To Tamora.l Now, madam, are you prisoner to an
emperor ;

To him that, for your honour and your state,

237. gentleness^ noble and honour-
able conduct.

238. onsefl beginning.

240. empress^ trisyllable here.

242. Pantheon] as in F 2. Q I and
F I have Pathan.”

250. imperious] imperial. Rather a
Shakespearian turn, as he is fond of
making his characters say things that
are stultified by their after con-
duct.

258. NoWy madam y are you prisomry
etc,] This seems to me another piece of
dramatic irony by which Titus is made
to make light of and almost to forget
the cruel slaying of Tamora’s son, and
appear to think she ought to be quite
pleased with the turn events have taken.
Titus, like Lear, is depicted as very
impulsive, rash, imperious, and want-
ing in perception of character. See
Introduction.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

17

sc. I.]

Will use you nobly and your followers. 260

Sat. [Aside.] A goodly lady, trust me ; of the hue
That I would choose, were I to choose anew.

[A/oud.] Clear up, fair queen, that cloudy countenance
Though chance of war hath wrought this change of
cheer,

Thou com*st not to be made a scorn in Rome: 265
Princely shall be thy usage every way.

Rest on my word, and let not discontent
Daunt all your hopes : madam, he comforts you
Can make you greater than the Queen of Goths.
Lavinia, you are not displeas’d with this? 270

Lav. Not I, my lord ; sith true nobility

Warrants these words in princely courtesy.

Sat. Thanks, sweet Lavinia. Romans, let us go :
Ransomless here we set our prisoners free :

Proclaim our honours, lords, with trump and
drum. 275

Bass. Lord Titus, by your leave, this maid is mine,

[Seizing^ Lavinia.

Tit. How, sir ! Are you in earnest then, my lord ?

Bass. Ay, noble Titus ; and resolv’d withal
To do myself this reason and this right.

261, 262. A goodly lady'\ These two
lines, though not so given in any of the
texts, are of course aside^ and the
rhymed couplet marks them as sig-
nificant.

261. hue\ Shakespeare probably
thought the Goths were dark, and that
Lavinia, like Lucrece in the poem,
was fair and golden-haired, the favourite
type then of Italian or Renaissance
beauty in woman. Dark women seem
to have had, according to the Sonnets^
a peculiar fascination for Shakespeare,
2

so he attributes the same weakness to
Saturninus, as later to Anthony.

264. cheer\ mood.

268. he\ he who, an Elizabethan
elision.

271. Not /, my lord] Steevens seems
to have started, in a singularly ill-
natured note on this speech, the abuse
of poor Lavinia, which has been taken
up with gusto by Mr. Arthur Symons
and others. See Introduction, where I
give reasons for utterly disagreeing with
this view, p. xlvii, etc.

18

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.
280

Marc, Suum cuique is our Roman justice :

This prince in justice seizeth but his own.
Luc. And that he will, and shall, if Lucius live.

Tit. Traitors, avaunt! Where is the emperor’s guard?

Treason, my lord ! Lavinia is surpris’d.

Sat. Surpris’d 1 by whom ?

Bass, By him that justly may 285

Bear his betroth’d from all the world away.

\Exeunt Marcus and Bassianus^ with Lavinia,
Mut, Brothers, help to convey her hence away.

And with my sword I ’ll keep this door safe.

{Exeunt Lucius^ Quintus^ and Martius,
Tit, Follow, my lord, and I ’ll soon bring her back.

Mut. My lord, you pass not here.

Tit, What I villain boy ; 290

Barr’st me my way in Rome ? {Stabs Mutius,

Mut, Help, Lucius, help 1

{Dies,

Re-enter LUCIUS.

Luc, My lord, you are unjust, and more than so ;

In wrongful quarrel you have slain your son.

Tit. Nor thou, nor he, are any sons of mine ;

My sons would never so dishonour me. 295

Traitor, restore Lavinia to the emperor.

280. Suum cuique] to each his own, now made a deadly enemy of Tamora,
a Latin tag that any schoolboy would a treacherous and ungrateful one in
know. Saturninus, an indignant one in Bas-

290. What / villain boy\ Titus, like sianus, and outraged the feelings of all
Lear, will brook no opposition, and his family, including Marcus, his admir-
promptly slays one son and disowns the ing brother. He is now left almost
others when they oppose his will. Like isolated to feel his impotency and
Lear, he cannot realise that he has regret his ill - judged actions. See
really divested himself of power. By Introduction, p. xxxiv, etc.
bis own rash and unwise actions he has

sc I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 19

Luc, Dead, if you will ; but not to be his wife

That is another’s lawful promis’d love. \Exit,

Sat, No, Titus, no ; the emperor needs her not.

Nor her, nor thee, nor any of thy stock : 300

I ’ll trust, by leisure, him that mocks me once ;

Thee never, nor thy traitorous haughty sons.
Confederates all thus to dishonour me.

Was there none else in Rome to make a stale

But Saturnine? Full well, Andronicus, 305

Agree these deeds with that proud brag of thine.

That said’st I begg’d the empire at thy hands.

Tit, O monstrous ! what reproachful words are these ?

Sat, But go thy ways ; go, give that changing piece

To him that flourish’d for her with his sword. 310
A valiant son-in-law thou shalt enjoy ;

One fit to bandy with thy lawless sons.

To ruffle in the commonwealth of Rome.

Tit, These words are razors to rny wounded heart.

Sat, And therefore, lovely Tamora, Queen of Goths, 315
That like the stately Phoebe ’mongst her nymphs

3CX). Nor her] equivalent to neither her; 309. piece] woman in a contemptuous

somtimes erroneously printed ‘‘not her.’' sense (as in modern slang), though used
301. dy leisure] equivalent to “by also in a favourable sense, but usually
your leave" in a sarcastic sense. Cf. with qualifying words to make this
Rickard III. i. ii. 82, etc. clear, as Tempest^ i. ii. 56.

304. stale] dupe, decoy, tool, or 312. bandy] contend, quarrel, from
object of ridicule. Saturninus now the game of tennis, striking the ball
suspects or pretends that Titus put him to and fro ; from band in the sense
on the throne with a view of keeping of party, side, in war or games,
the real power in his own hands. He 313. ruffle] brawl, make disturb-
now sees his opportunity, out of Titus' ances.

own rash errors, of ridding himself 314. razors] not a particularly happy
of the whole family of whom he is phrase, but perhaps meant as an allusion
genuinely afraid. We notice the result to Titus’ own employment of razors
on his weak nature of Tamora’s later on.

machinations. The second Quarto has 316. stately Phoebe] Diana. Malone
“of” after “stale,” but it is super- and Ritson quote parallel passages from
fluous. Comedy of Errors^ ii. i. loi. Horace and Virgil.

20

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I,

Dost overshine the gallant’st dames of Rome,

If thou be pleas’d with this my sudden choice,

Behold, I choose thee, Tamora, for my bride,

And will create thee Empress of Rome. 320

Speak, Queen of Goths, dost thou applaud my
choice ?

And here I swear by all the Roman gods,

Sith priest and holy water are so near.

And tapers burn so bright, and every thing
In readiness for Hymenaeus stand, 325

I will not ^e-salute the streets of %)me,

Or climb my palace, till from forth this place
I lead espous’d my bride along with me.

Tam, And here, in sight of heaven, to Rome I swear,

If Saturnine advance the Queen of Goths, 330

She will a handmaid be to his desires,

A loving nurse, a mother to his youth.

Sat, Ascend, fair queen. Pantheon. Lords, accompany
Your noble emperor, and his lovely bride,

Sent by the heavens for Prince Saturnine, 335

Whose wisdom hath her fortune conquered.

There shall we consummate our spousal rites.

[Exeunt all but Titus,
Tit, I am not bid to wait upon this bride.

317. gallant^ st} finest, most beautiful.
As Lovers Laboui^s Los^, ii. 196, “a
gallant lady.”

323. Sit A priest and holy water] An
anachronism which a more learned or
pedantic author would have avoided,

325. Hymenaus] Hymen. This is
the only instance where Shakespeare
uses the longer form.

332. a mother to his youth] Tamora,
with that aplomb which distinguishes

her, puts the best face she can on the
disparity of their ages, as she, having
three grown-up sons, must have been
at least foity, and Saturninus was
probably not more than five-and-twenty.
Women of that age are often dangerous
intriguantes^ and have their full share
of amorous passion, as had Gertrude,
Hamlet’s mother.

.338- / am not bid^ etc,] am not in-
vited. Titus for the first time realises

TITUS ANDRONICUS

21

sc. I.]

Titus, when wert thou wont to walk alone,

Dishonour’d thus, and challenged of wrongs ? 340

Re-enter MARCUS, LUCIUS, QuiNTUS, and Martius.

Marc, O Titus, see ! O see what thou hast done !

In a bad quarrel slain a virtuous son.

Tit No, foolish tribune, no ; no son of mine.

Nor thou, nor these, confederates in the deed

That hath dishonour’d all our family: 345

Unworthy brother, and unworthy sons !

Luc, But let us give him burial, as becomes ;

Give Mutius burial with our brethren.

Tit Traitors, away ! he rests not in this tomb.

This monument five hundred years hath stood, 350
Which I have sumptuously re-edified :

Here none but soldiers and Rome’s servitors
Repose in fame ; none basely slain in brawls.

Bury him where you can ; he comes not here.

Marc, My lord, this is impiety in you. 355

My nephew Mutius’ deeds do plead for him ;

He must be buried with his brethren.

Quint Mart, And shall, or him we will accompany.

Tit, “ And shall ! ” What villain was it spake that
word ?

Quint, He that would vouch it in any place but here. 360
Tit What ! would you bury him in my despite ?

Marc, No, noble Titus; but entreat of thee
To pardon Mutius, and to bury him.

Tit Marcus, even thou hast struck upon my crest,

his sell-created isolation. Shakespeare to deduce the hero’s misfortunes from

is here as determined as in his later his own faults.

tragedies of King Lear and Coriolanus 340. challenged^ accused.

22

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act I.

And, with these boys, mine honour thou hast
wounded: 365

My foes I do repute you every one ;

So, trouble me no more, but get you gone.

Mart. He is not with himself ; let us withdraw.

Quint. Not I, till Mutius' bones be buried.

\Marcus and the Sons of Titus kneel.
Marc. Brother, for in that name doth nature plead, — 370

Quint. Father, and in that name doth nature speak, —

Tit. Speak thou no more, if all the rest will speed.

Marc. Renowned Titus, more than half my soul, —

Luc. Dear father, soul and substance of us all, —

Marc. Suffer thy brother Marcus to inter 375

His noble nephew here in virtue's nest,

That died in honour and Lavinia's cause.

Thou art a Roman ; be not barbarous :

The Greeks upon advice did bury Ajax

That slew himself ; and wise Laertes' son, 380

Did graciously plead for his funerals.

368. not witK\ (the Folio omits in books, etc. How many people have
“with”) beside himself — a curious really read Rabelais or the Faerie
phrase, which seeins founded on the Queene, or the second part of Faust}
notion that, as in the biblical “pos- Yet those who have got a general
session ” or in the modern spiritualist’s acquaintance with the contents of these
“control,” the true self was in abey- books, if they were as clever and
ance and some evil spirit in occupation, observant as Shakespeare was, could
380. Laertes^ son] Ulysses. There no doubt allude to them without blun-
is no doubt that this passage seems to dering. Besides, Shakespeare, even
imply a correct, if not intimate, know- in Jonson’s grudging acknowledgment,
ledge of Sophocles’ play of Ajax, of knew some Greek, possibly enough to
which it is alleged there was no extant spell out a passage in a play. Mr.
translation in Shakespeare’s time. In Churton Collins maintains that Shake-
the first place, as I said before, I do speare in all probability was well
not think a knowledge of the “plot” acquainted with the Greek Tragedies
and “ action ” of a celebrated classical in the original, but there always re-
play necessarily implies ability to read mains the alternative of his havmg
It in the original. Many of us know read them in Latin translations. See
something of books we have never read Fortnightly Review^ 1903.
from the talk of others, from allusions 381. funerals] Shakespeare ffe-

sc. I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 23

Let not young Mutius then, that was thy joy,

Be barr'd his entrance here.

Tit Rise, Marcus, rise.

The dismairst day is this that e’er I saw,

To be dishonour’d by my sons in Rome! 385

Well, bury him, and bury me the next.

[^Mutius is put into the tomb,

Luc, There lie thy bones, sweet Mutius, with thy friends,
Till we with trophies do adorn thy tomb.

All, [Kneeling,'] No man shed tears for noble Mutius ;

He lives in fame that died in virtue’s cause. 390

Marc, My lord, to step out of these dreary dumps,

How comes it that the subtle Queen of Goths
Is of a sudden thus advanc’d in Rome ?

Tit, I know not, Marcus ; but I know it is :

Whether by device or no, the heavens can tell. 395

Is she not then beholding to the man

That brought her for this high good turn so far ?

Yes, and will nobly him remunerate.

Flourish. Re-enter^ from one side ^ Saturninus, attended;
Tamora, Demetrius, Chiron, and Aaron ; from
the othery Bassianus, Lavinia, and Others,

Sat, So, Bassianus, you have

quently uses the plural form, while
he employs “nuptial" in all cases but
one. Pericles^ v. iii. 8o.

389. No man shed tears ^ etc. ] Steevens
declares this to be a translation from
Ennius, but it is one of those ideas
which had long since become common
property. Besides, it is not an accurate
translation of the lines quoted.

395. device] plot, stratagem,
scheming.

play’d your prize :

396. beholding] beholden. Abbott,
par. 372.

397. turn] a service or disservice,
as in “ one good turn deserves another,”
as in Venus j 92 ; SonnetSy xxiv. 9.

398. YeSy and will, etc.] should ap-
parently be said by Marcus in reply to
Titus. Malone.

399. playd your prize] won in your
competition, in which sense prize is
used elsewhere in Shakespeare l^Mer-

24 TITUS ANDRONICUS [acti.

God give you joy, sir, of your gallant bride ! 400

Bass. And you of yours, my lord ! I say no more,

Nor wish no less ; and so I take my leave.

Sat Traitor, if Rome have law or we have power.

Thou and thy faction shall repent this rape.

Bass. Rape call you it, my lord, to seize my own, 405
My true-betrothed love and now my wife ?

But let the laws of Rome determine all ;

Meanwhile I am possess’d of that is mine.

Sat ’Tis good, sir : you are very short with us ;

But, if we live, we ’ll be aa sharp with you. 410

Bass. My lord, what I have done, as best I may,

Answer I must and shall do with my life.

Only thus much I give your grace to know :

By all the duties that I owe to Rome,

This noble gentleman. Lord Titus here, 415

Is in opinion and in honour wrong’d ;

That, in the rescue of Lavinia,

With his own hand did slay his youngest son,

In zeal to you and highly mov’d to wrath

To be controll’d in that he frankly gave: 420

Receive him then to favour, Saturnine,

That hath express’d himself in all his deeds
A father and a friend to thee and Rome.

Tit Prince Bassianus, leave to plead my deeds :

’Tis thou and those that have dishonour’d me. 425

chant of Venice^ in. ii. 42). A meta-
phor borrowed from the fencing schools,
prizes being played for certain degrees
in the schools where the art of defence
was taught— degrees of Master, Provost,
and Scholar,” Dyce’s Glossary^ Little-
dale’s New Edition.

409. short] abrupt, rude.

416. opinion] in the esteem of
others.

416. wron^d] injured, lowered.

420. To be controirdi etc, ] because he
was controlled or opposed, etc.

420. frankly] freely, openly.

sc. I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 26

Rome and the righteous heavens be my judge,

How I have lov'd and honour'd Saturnine !

Tam, My worthy lord, if ever Tamora

Were gracious in those princely eyes of thine.

Then hear me speak indifferently for all ; 430

And at my suit, sweet, pardon what is past.

SaL What, madam ! be dishonour'd openly.

And basely put it up without revenge?

Tam, Not so, my lord ; the gods of Rome forfend

I should be author to dishonour you ! 435

But on mine honour dare I undertake
For good Lord Titus’ innocence in all,

Whose fury not dissembled speaks his griefs.

Then, at my suit, look graciously on him ;

Lose not so noble a friend on vain suppose, 440

Nor with sour looks afflict his gentle heart.

{Aside to Saturninusi] My lord, be rul'd by me, be won
at last ;

Dissemble all your griefs and discontents :

You are but newly planted in your throne ;

Lest then the people, and patricians too, 445

Upon a just survey, take Titus' part,

And so supplant you for ingratitude,

Which Rome reputes to be a heinous sin.

Yield at entreats, and then let me'alone.

I 'll find a day to massacre them all, 450

433. put it up"] submit to, endure, 440. suppose] supposition, as else-

put up with seems to come from the where in Shakespeare. Taming of the
notion of sheathing one’s weapon with- Shrew ^ v. 120.
out fighting. Beaumont and Fletcher, 449. at entreats] to entreaty.

Wit at several Weapons, V. i., “put 449. let me alone] leave it all to

up, put up.” me, commonly used by Shakespeare

435. author] cause. Venus, 1005 ; and others.

Lucrece, 523, 1244.

26 TITUS ANDRONICUS [acti.

And raze their faction a nd their family,

The cruel father, and his traitorous sons,

To whom I sued f or my dear son’s life ;

And make them know what ’tis to let a queen
Kneel in the streets and beg for grace in vain. 455
[A/oud] Come, come, sweet emperor; come, Andronicus;
Take up this good old man, and cheer the heart
That dies in tempest of thy angry frown.

Saf. Rise, Titus, rise ; my empress hath prevail’d.

Tit, I thank your majesty, and her, my lord. 460

These words, these looks, infuse new life in me.

Tam, Titus, I am incorporate in Rome,

A Roman now adopted happily.

And must advise the emperor for his good.

This day all quarrels die, Andronicus; 465

And let it be mine honour, good my lord.

That I have reconcil’d your friends and you.

For you. Prince Bassianus, I have pass’d
My word and promise to the emperor.

That you will be more mild and tractable. 470

And fear not, lords, and you, Lavinia ;

By my advice, all humbled on your knees.

You shall ask pardon of his majesty.

Luc, We do ; and vow to heaven and to his highness.

That what we did was mildly, as we might, 47 $

Tendering our sister’s honour and our own.

451. destroy. Also Cj'mbeline, Duncan, which are rather — perhaps
V. V. 7. intentionally — overdone.

462. TifuSf I anif etc."] This speech 475. mildly ^ as we might] as mildly
of Tamora’s in dramatic fitness and in and gently as possible — which was true,
dignity is to my mind quite as skilfully 476. Tendering] showing a tender re-
conceived and framed as Lady Mac- gard for, defending ; frequent in Shake-
beth’s equally hypocritical speeches to peare in this sense, as v. ii. 77, etc.

sc. I.J

TITUS ANDRONICUS

27

Marc, That on mine honour here I do protest.

Sat, Away, and talk not ; trouble us no more.

Tam, Nay, nay, sweet emperor, we must all be friends :

The tribune and his nephews kneel for grace ; 480

I will not be denied : sweet heart, look back.

Sat, Marcus, for thy sake, and thy brother’s here.

And at my lovely Tamora’s entreats,

I do remit these young men’s heinous faults :

Stand up. 485

Lavinia, though you left me like a churl,

I found a friend, and sure as death I swore
I would not part a bachelor from the priest.

Come ; if the emperor’s court can feast two brides.

You are my guest, Lavinia, and your friends. 490
This day shall be a love-day, Tamora.

Tit, To-morrow, an it please your majesty

To hunt the panther and the hart with me.

With horn and hound we ’ll give your grace bon jour.
Sat, Be it so, Titus, and gramercy too. 495

[ T rumpets. Exeunt,

478. Away^ and talk noty etc.] Sat- of quarries, like hunting the hunted,
uminus is as poor a dissembler beside It may have a symbolic meaning, — the
Tamora as Macbeth beside Lady panther signifying Tamora and the
Macbeth. hart Lavinia, — as the latter is clearly

486. churl] a mean, common person, spoken of as a doe by Chiron and
O.E. ceorly a peasant or villain. Demetrius. The panther is not men-

491. love-day] a day appointed by tinned in any other play attributed to
the Church for the amicable settlement Shakespeare. Is it possible that here
of differences. “In love-dayes ther Dryden got the suggestion for his
coude he muchel helpe,” Chaucer’s and the Panther}

Prologue, 258. 495. gramercy] from “grand merci,”

493. To hunt the panther and the like the modern “ many thanks.”
hart] This seems a curious combination

28

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act II.

ACT II

SCENE 1. — Rome. Before the Palace,

Enter Aaron.

Aar. Now climbeth Tamora Olympus' top,

Safe out of fortune's shot ; and sits aloft,

Secure of thunder's crack or lightning flash,

Advanc'd above pale envy’s threatening reach.

As when the golden sun salutes the morn, 5

And, having gilt the ocean with his beams.

Gallops the zodiac in his glistering coach.

And overlooks the highest-peering hills ;

So Tamora.

I. Now climbeth Tamora^ etc.] It is
highly characteristic of Shakespeare’s
irony to put his fine speeches into the
mouths of his bad or inferior characters.
So, in this play, Tamora and Aaron
have all the best of the poetic rhetoric.
The versification is good, especially in
its subtle and effective use of allitera-
tion, and the broken lines are char-
acteristic of Shakespeare. The use of
the homely word “coach” where a
modern would say “ car ” or “ chariot,”
if not confined to Shakespeare, is paral-
leled in him by a kindred use of waggon
and cart in a similar sense, as “ Phoebus’
cart” in Hanilet^ ill. ii. 165, and
“Queen Mab’s waggon” in Romeo
and Juliet^ i. iv. 59.

3. Secure of] safe from.

3. crack] explosion, loud noise (cf.
modern “ cracker ”), Tempest^ i. ii. 203 ;
“ crack of doom,” Antony^ v. i. 15. A
form of “ crash,” and probably an ono-
matopoeic word ; also in the sense of a
“ charge ” of powder, Macbeth^ i. ii. 37.

4. Advanced] raised. Tempest, i,
ii. 408 ; of standards, Merry Wives,
III. iv. 85.

4. envy's] Here rather in the sense
of hate or malice. Tempest, i. ii. 259,
etc.; cf. Bible (1611), Mark xv. 10
{New Eng. Diet.). See Introduction,
p. xiv.

7. Gallops] gallop over. Nashe,
15^, in title of First Parte of Pas-
quil’s Apologie, . . . gallops the field
. . . New Eng. Diet, This seems a
reminiscence of an expression of George
Peele*s {Anglorum Fence, Bullen, vol.
ii. p. 344), “gallops the zodiac in his
fiery wain.” This proves nothing, of
course, against Shakespeare’s author-
ship, as he never seems to have hesitated
in appropriating what he considered
suitable from his predecessors or con-
temporaries. But I greatly doubt
whether these appropriations were so
deliberate and intentional as some com-
mentators seem to think, and I believe
they were frequently unconscious in the
first instance. See Introduction, p.
xiv. I am indebted to Mr. Craig for
this reference.

8. w^r/i!7^>^]toIookdownon. Venus,
178; King John, ii. 344.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

29

sc. I.]

Upon her wit doth earthly honour wait, lO

And virtue stoops and trembles at her frown.

Then, Aaron, arm thy heart, and fit thy thoughts
To mount jiloft with thy imperial mistress.

And mount her pitch, whom thou in triumph long
Hast prisoner held, fetter’d in amorous chains, i $
And faster bound to Aaron’s charming eyes
Than is Prometheus tied to Caucasus.

Away with slavish weeds and servile thoughts !

I will be bright, and shine in pearl and gold,

To wait upon this new-made empress. 20

To wait, said I ? to wanton with this queen,

This goddess, this Semiramis, this nymph.

This siren, that will charm Rome’s Saturnine,

And see his shipwreck and his commonweal’s.

Holla! what storm is this? 25

Enter DEMETRIUS and CHIRON, braving,

Dem, Chiron, thy years want wit, thy wit wants edge.
And manners, to intrude where I am grac’d.

And may, for aught thou know’st, affected be.

10. w/V] Warburton suggests “ will,”
but Johnson very properly defends
“ wit ” as characteristic of Tamora.

14. pttcK\ A hawking phrase frequent
in Shakespeare, meaning the height to
which a hawk soars before striking
down on her prey. 1 Henry VI. ii.
iv. II ; Julius Ccesar^ I. i. 78.

17. Prometheus] Another instance of
the author’s familiarity with classic
myth and story ; but no proof of
familiarity at first hand with the Pro-
metheus of ^schylus. But see Chur-
ton Collins, Fortnightly Review., 1903 j
A pril, May, July.

22. nymph] The 1611 Q and F i
have “queen,” an obvious error.

25. braving] defying each other.
Lucrece, 40 ; Tmning 0} the Shrew ^ IV.
iii. 126.

26. Chiron^ thy years want wit, etc. ]
Demetrius, from the order in which the
brothers’ names stand among the list of
Dramatis Personce, must have been the
elder, so that the meaning is that he,
Chiron, is immature both in age and
wit, and that it is therefore presump-
tuous of him to enter into rivalry with
his elder brother.

27. favoured. Two Gentlemen ,
I. iii. 58 ; Spenser, Faerie Queene, i. x.
64.

28. affected] loved. Love's Labours
Lost, i. ii. 92.

30

TITUS ANDRONICUS [act i.

Chi. Demetrius, thou dost overween in all,

And so in this, to bear me down with braves. 30

Tis not the difference of a year or two

Makes me less gracious or thee more fortunate :

I am as able and as fit as thou

To serve, and to deserve my mistress* grace ;

And that my sword upon thee shall approve, 35

And plead my passions for Lavinia*s love.

Aar. Clubs, clubs ! these lovers will not keep the peace.

Dem. Why, boy, although our mother, unadvis’d.

Gave you a dancing-rapier by your side,

Are you so desperate grown, to threat your friends ? 40
Go to ; have your lath glued within your sheath
Till you know better how to handle it.

Chi. Meanwhile, sir, with the little skill I have.

Full well shalt thou perceive how much I dare.

Dem. Ay, boy, grow ye so brave? \They draw.

Aar. Why, how now, lords ! 45

So near the emperor’s palace dare you draw.

And maintain such a quarrel openly ?

Full well I wot the ground of all this grudge ;

I would not for a million of gold

The cause were known to them it most concerns; 50

Nor would your noble mother for much more

Be so dishonour’d in the court of Rome.

For shame, put up.

37. Clubs^ clubs II The cry raised
when any brawl arose for the watchman
and others to separate the combatants
with clubs. It became the rallying cry of
the London apprentices. Romeo ^ i. i. 80.

39. dancing ‘ rapier] one worn for
ornament rather than use. Cf. Scott’s
“carpet knight” in The Lady of the

LaJie\ also, “no sword worn but one
to dance with,” All's Well^ il. i. 33.
Steevens cites “dancing rapier” from
Greene’s Quip for an Upstart Courtier.
See also Antony ^ III. ii. 36.

49. million] a trisyllable.

53. put uf\ sheathe your weapon.
Henry V, ii, i. 109. See above.

SC.I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 31

Dem. Not I, till I have sheath'd

My rapier in his bosom, and withal
Thrust those reproachful speeches down his throat 5 5
That he hath breath'd in my dishonour here.

ChL For that I am prepar’d and full resolv'd,

Foul-spoken coward, that thunder’st with thy tongue.
And with thy weapon nothing dar'st perform !

Aar. Away, I say ! 60

Now, by the gods that war-like Goths adore.

This petty brabble will undo us all.

Why, lords, and think you not how dangerous
It is to jet upon a prince's right ?

What! is Lavinia then become so loose, 65

Or Bassianus so degenerate.

That for her love such quarrels may be broach'd
Without controlment, justice, or revenge?

Young lords, beware! an should the empress know
This discord's ground, the music would not please. 70
Chi. I care not, I, knew she and all the world :

I love Lavinia more than all the world.

Dem, Youngling, learn thou to make some meaner choice;
Lavinia is thine elder brother’s hope.

53. Not /] It seems likely, as War-
burton suggests, that this speech should
be given to Chiron and the next to
Demetrius. Aaron’s speech being in-
terjected, it is natural that Chiron
should reply to his brother’s taunt,
“Ay, boy, grow ye so brave?”

50. thunder' st\ Steevens, who seems
to think no Elizabethan can have
a phrase or idea not borrowed from
Latin or Greek, quotes from Virgil’s
jSneidf xi. 383. One would like to
know whence comes the phrase “ thun-
der’st in the index,” Hamlet^ ni. iv. 52 !

62. brabblel wrangle, squabble. Cf.
Merry Wives ^ I. i. 56, and Henry V,
IV. viii. 69, “pribbles and prabbles,
being the Welsh dialect for “bribbles
and brabbles.” Both these words
seem formed by onomatopoea, though
they may be connected with “ babble”
(Babel), “prattle,” “brattle,” and
words of that class. Milton, Church
Dis. ii., 1851, 54, “a surplice-
brabble.”

64. jef\ to encroach on. Some edi-
tors gloss “jut,” which is quite un-
necessary. Richard III. 1 1, iv. 51.

32 TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

Aar, Why, are ye mad? or know ye not in Rome 75
How furious and impatient they be,

And cannot brook competitors in love ?

I tell you, lords, you do but plot your deaths
By this device.

Chi, Aaron, a thousand deaths

Would I propose, to achieve her whom I love. 80
Aar, To achieve her ! how ?

Dem, Why mak'st thou it so strange ?

She is a woman, therefore may be woo’d ;

She is a woman, therefore may be won ;

She is Lavinia, therefore must be lov’d.

What, man ! more water glideth by the mill 8 S

Than wots the miller of ; and easy it is
Of a cut loaf to steal a shive, we know :

Though Bassianus be the emperor’s brother,

Better than he have worn Vulcan’s badge.

Aar, \Aside?^ Ay, and as good as Saturninus may. 90
Dem, Then why should he despair that knows to court it

80. propose] ** is to risk, dare, ” Wood-
ham. Like other words in Shakespeare,
this seems to be used m a strictly
classical sense of to set before our-
selves, undertake.

82. She is a woman^ etc.] 1 Hemy
VI. V. iii. 65 :

‘ ‘ She ’s beautiful, and therefore to
be woo’d ;

She is a woman, therefore to be
won.”

Shakespeare may here be indebted to
Greene, who has, “Pasylla was a
woman, and therefor to be won,”
Works, vol. V. p. 567.

85. more water, etc.] Founded on a
Scottish proverb, “Mickle water goes
ihe mill, while the miller sleeps.”-
Steevens quotes a Latin version; biil

does not say where he got it. See
lleywood’s Proverbs, ed. Sharman
(1546), p. 128. Burton {^Anatomy of
Melancholy) quotes the Latin, “Non
omnem molitor quae fluit unda videt.”
Did a similar proverb suggest to
Chaucer making a miller the victim in
the Reeve's I ale?

86. and easy it is, etc.] Also a pro-
verbial expression. See Rae (1768),
p. 481.

87. shive] slice, and is connected
with “ shiver ” = to break in pieces.
Chaucer has the form “ shivere ” in the
same sense of slice — Somnour's Tale.

89. Vulcatls] a trisyllable. The
possessive in “’s” was still sounded
as a syllable, hence the form ** Vulcan
his ” = “ Vulcan’s. ”

TITUS ANDRONICUS

33

sc. I.]

With words, fair looks, and liberality?

What ! hast thou not full often struck a doe,

And borne her cleanly by the keeper’s nose ?

Aar, Why, then, it seems, some certain snatch or so 95
Would serve your turns.

Chi, Ay, so the turn were serv’d.

Dem, Aaron, thou hast hit it.

Aar. Would you had hit it too !

Then should not we be tir’d with this ado.

Why, hark ye, hark ye ! and are you such fools
To square for this? would it offend you then 100
That both should speed ?

Chi, Faith, not me.

Dem, Nor me, so I were one.

Aar, For shame, be friends, and join for that you jar :

’Tis policy and stratagem must do

That you affect; and so must you resolve, 105

That what you cannot, as you would, achieve,

You must perforce accomplish as you may.

Take this of me : Lucrece was not more chaste

93. What! hast thou^ etc,'\ Surely a
clear relapse to the poacher of Shake-
speare’s Warwickshire youth ! The
anachronism is delightful, and the
idea of the son of the King of the
Goths deer-stealing exquisitely humor-
ous. But it must be remembered that,
in Shakespeare’s day, deer-stealing was
not regarded as a moral offence, any
more than orchard -robbing among Eng-
lish schoolboys. When Shakespeare
makes his Prince Hal turn highway-
man, a profession which has always
had its romantic side, he has no idea
of really degrading him in the eyes
of the audience, but merely portrays
faithfully the madcap pranks of the

3

young nobles of the day. Malone thinks
that the remark is addressed to Aaron.
94. cleanlyl clean away.

100. To square] to put oneself in a
boxing attitude ; hence, to fight, as
Midsummer-Night' s Dream ^ ii. i. 30.
Cotgrave’s French Dictionaiy^ under
desaccorder^ gives “to discord . . .
differ, dissent, square,'* etc.

101. Faith, not me] This seems to
come ill from Chiron, who has been
protesting so much about his love for
Lavinia. But see Introduction, p.

XXX.

103. jar] quarrel. 1 Henry VI, III.
i. 70 ; Marlowe, Jew of Malta, ii, ii.
123.

34

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

Than this Lavinia, Bassianus’ love.

A speedier course than lingering languishment 1 1 o
Must we pursue, and I have found the path.

My lords, a solemn hunting is in hand ;

There will the lovely Roman ladies troop :

The forest walks are wide and spacious.

And many unfrequented plots there are 1 1 5

Fitted by kind for rape and villany :

Single you thither then this dainty doe.

And strike her home by force, if not by words :

This way, or not at all, stand you in hope.

Come, come; our empress, with her sacred wit 120
To villany and vengeance consecrate.

Will we acquaint with all that we intend;

And she shall file our engines with advice.

That will not suffer you to square yourselves.

But to your wishes' height advance you both. 125
The emperor’s court is like the house of Fame,

no. lingering languishment\ a long 120. sacred] devoted to, in the true
sentimental courtship. Lucrece^ 1147. classic sense. The author often uses

1 12. grand, as being held in words thus, but so does Shakespeare

honour of the Emperor, like a state in his acknowledged plays, as already
ball or other royal function. Cf. Son- pointed out.

nets^ Ui. 5 ; Taming of the Shrew ^ ill. 123. file] to refine or perfect, as a
ii. 103, etc. file finishes off a machine or a tool.

1 16. by kind] by nature. See Love's Labour's Lost 12 \ Sonnet s^

Chaucer, House of Fame ^ ii. 241. Ixxxv. 4.

1 1 7. Single] single out, separate; a 124. square yourselves] settle it be-

hunting term. ‘‘When he (the hart) tween you, or manage for yourselves,
is hunted, or doth first leave the hearde, The meaning is that Tamora's “ sacred
we say he is singled or empryned,” wit” will manage things much better
Turberville, The Noble Art of for them than they could do for them-
Venerie, selves.

1 17. dainty doe] This confirms my 126. house of Fame] Apparently in
notion of the symbolism of “panther allusion to Chaucer’s poem of that
and hart.” “Dainty” here means name, which Shakespeare would doubt-
“ delicate,” “enticing,” “lovely.” less know and appreciate. See also
Tempest f v. 85; Midsummer-Night's Veele's Honour of the Garter^ lyZy
v, 286, 233-239 (Crawford).

sc. II.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

35

The palace full of tongues, of eyes, of ears :

The woods are ruthless, dreadful, deaf, and dull ;

There speak, and strike, brave boys, and take your turns ;
There serve your lusts, shadow’d from heaven’s eye, 130
And revel in Lavinia’s treasury.

Chi, Thy counsel, lad, smells of no cowardice.

Dem, Sit fas aut nefas^ till I find the stream

To cool this heat, a charm to calm these fits.

Per Styga^ per manes vehor, \Exeunt, 135

SCENE II.— ^ Forest,

Horns and cry of hounds heard.

Enter Titus Andronicus, with Hunters, etc,, MARCUS,
Lucius, Quintus, and Martius.

Tit. The hunt is up, the morn is bright and grey.

The fields are fragrant and the woods are green.

132. smells of no cowardice'] i.e. is
bold and requires some nerve to carry
out. Measure for Measure, ll. iv.

151.

133. Sit fas aut nefas] be it right or
wrong. ‘‘ Nefas” is stronger than our
word “wrong,” meaning something
impious and forbidden.

135. Per Styga, per manes vehor] I
am borne across the Styx and among
the shades of the dead ; meaning that
nothing will turn him back. Both these
tags are from Seneca’s Hippobtu^,
1 1 80- 1. But “vehor” should be
“ segnor.”

Scene //.

Scene //.] Johnson suggests beginning
the Second Act here. But this would
never do, as these two scenes must
follow close on each other, and the

only solution of the time-difficulty is
to suppose an interval between the
Acts and take the hunting in this Act
to be a different one from that men-
tioned in Act I. ; but see Introduc-
tion, p. Ixxix.

I. The hunt is up] is begun or ready.
Romeo, ill. v. 34. So Henryson’s
Works (Laing), p. 186.

I, bright and grey] Steevens and
others are much exercised over this com-
bination, which only shows how pedantry
can blind one’s natural powers of ob-
servation. I should think that every
second or third morning, after the
flush of dawn is gone, has a stage
when it is “bright and grey.” Cot-
grave’s French Dictionary gives
under bluard, “ grey, skie-coloured,
blewish.” See Sonnets, cxxxii,, where
“grey” means “bright,”

36

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act n.

Uncouple here and let us make a bay,

And wake the emperor and his lovely bride,

And rouse the prince and ring a hunter's peal, 5

That all the court may echo with the noise.

Sons, let it be your charge, as it is ours.

To attend the emperor's person carefully:

I have been troubled in my sleep this night.

But dawning day new comfort hath inspir'd. 10

[A cry of hounds^ and horns winded in a peal.

Enter Saturninus, Tamora, Bassianus, Lavinia,
Demetrius, Chiron, and Attendants.

Many good morrows to your majesty ;

Madam, to you as many and as good :

I promised your grace a hunter's peal.

Sat, And you have rung it lustily, my lords ;

Somewhat too early for new-married ladies, 1 5

Bass. Lavinia, how say you ?

Lav. I say, no ;

I have been broad awake two hours and more.

Sat, Come on then ; horse and chariots let us have,

And to our sport. \To Tamora.'] Madam, now shall
ye see

Our Roman hunting.

3. Uncouple here and let us make a “wind" had a short vowel, but was
bay] loose the hounds so that they will affected by the lengthening of “i" before
bark. “ nd," which took place in Middle Eng-

9. / have been troubled] Prophetic lish, but not in Middle Scotch. Thus

dreams are common in Shakespeare, English “ behind, " but Scotch “ ahmt. "
as Clarence’s and Calphurnia’s. He i8. horse] horses, an old plural form,
apparently believed in them. still used of a troop or body of horse-

10. winded] past - participle weak; men, as “The Scottish Horse." We
from “wind’’=to blow. Pronounced still use “sheep” and “deer" in the
long, as the substantive “wind" was plural sense.

in Shakespeare’s time. Anglo-Saxon 20. Our Roman hunting] This hunt-

sc. Ill] TITUS ANDRONICUS

37

Marc, I have dogs, my lord, 20

Will rouse the proudest panther in the chase,

And climb the highest promontory top.

Tit, And I have horse will follow where the game

Makes way, and run like swallows o’er the plain.

Dem, Chiron, we hunt not, we, with horse nor hound, 25
But hope to pluck a dg^ioty. doe to ground. \ExeunU

SCENE III. — A lonely part of the Forest,

Enter Aaron, with a bag of gold.

Aar, He that had wit would think that I had none.

To bury so much gold under a tree,

And never after to inherit it.

Let him that thinks of me so abjectly

Know that this gold must coin a stratagem, 5

Which, cunningly effected, will beget

A very excellent piece of villany :

And so repose, sweet gold, for their unrest

\Hides the gold.

ing of panthers in the neighbourhood of
Rome seems somewhat on a par with
the seaport in Bohemia. Such a mixture
as panthers and deer is certainly not
possible, still less probable, in Europe
at all. I strongly suspect the whole
story of an originally Oriental origin ; the
lavish bloodshed and rapine being more
Oriental than Roman. But the myth
has evidently been modified in transit
through European hands. Chiron and
Demetrius are not Europeans, they are
Bashibazouks.

20. I have dogs, my lord'] I think
here again we have symbolism and
irony. The “proudest panther” refers

— not consciously to the speaker — to
Tamora, and the next line has an ironic
reference to Aaron’s boastful lines about
her.

24. Makes way] opens up a path or
gap. Taming of the Shrew, ll. 115,
and elsewhere.

Scene ill,

3. inherit] possess. As in The Tem-
pest, IV. i. 154; Richard J I, ll. i. 83.

8. unrest] disquieting, sorrow. Cf.
Richard III, IV. iv. 29 ; Steevens
quotes from The Spanish Tragedy,
“And therefore will I rest me in
unrest

38

TITUS ANDRONICUS [acth.

That have their alms out of the empress^ chest.

Enter Tamora.

Tam, My lovely Aaron, wherefore look’st thou sad lo
When every thing doth make a gleeful boast ?

The birds chant melody on every bush,

The snake lies rolled in the cheerful sun.

The green leaves quiver with the cooling wind.

And make a chequer’d shadow on the ground. i 5
Under their sweet shade, Aaron, let us sit.

And, whilst the babbling echo mocks the hounds,
Replying shrilly to the well-tun’d horns,

As if a double hunt were heard at once,

Let us sit down and mark their yelping noise ; 20

And after conflict, such as was suppos’d
The wandering prince and Dido once enjoy’d.

When with a happy storm they were surpris’d.

And curtain’d with a counsel-keeping cave.

We may, each wreathed in the other’s arms, 25

Our pastimes done, possess a golden slumber

9. That have their aims] Is rather
obscure, and seems to me to mean that
the Empress will give the Andronici
gifts, i.e. punishment, out of her chest,
i.e, her sacred wit,” which contains
evil for them.

12. The birds chant melody^ etc, ] This
fine passage is surely, if one may use
the expression, doubly Shakespearian,
firstly in its extreme and rare poetic and
rhythmic beauty, and secondly in that
love of contrast or irony by which he
makes it a prelude to one of the most
horrible scenes in this horrible drama.
See Shelley’s Adonais, stanzas, 18 and

19.

15. chequer'd shadow] ‘^Dancing in

the chequered shade,” Milton’s V Al-
legro.

20. yelping] The Quartos have “yel-
lowing,” possibly a variant of “yelling.”
But we have no other example of the
word.

23. with] by, a very common use of
the word by Shakespeare and earlier
writers. See Abbott, pars. 193-195 J
Franz, § 383, etc.

23. happy] fortunate.

24. counsel-keeping] that tells no
tales ; not elsewhere in Shakespeare.

26. golden slumber] excellent de-
licious sleep. Cf. Romeo y ii. iii. 38 ;
Henry IV. Ii. 344; Colley Cibber’s
Apology (1756), ii. 35, “golden actor.”

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

39

Whiles hounds and horns and sweet melodious birds
Be unto us as is a nurse's song
Of lullaby to bring her babe asleep.

Aar. Madam, though Venus govern your desires, 30

Saturn is dominator over mine :

What signifies my deadly-standing eye.

My silence and my cloudy melancholy,

My fleece of woolly hair that now uncurls

Even as an adder when she doth unroll 35

To do some fatal execution ?

No, madam, these are no venereal signs :

Vengeance is in my heart, death in my hand.

Blood and revenge are hammering in my head.

Hark, Tamora, the empress of my soul, 40

Which never hopes more heaven than rests in thee.
This is the day of doom for Bassianus ;

His Philomel must lose her tongue to-day,

29. bring . . . asleep\ put to sleep ; youth. It is just the sublime balder-
originally “on sleep,” see Acts xiii. dash that only a man of genius like
36 ; Barth de P.y vi. iv. (1495) 191, Marlowe or Shakespeare can write,
“ Nouryces bring the children softly on without being absolutely absurd. It is
slepe,” New. Eng. Diet. redeemed by accurate realistic touches.

31. Saturn is dominator.^ etc.'\ In Aaron had really planned out the whole
astrology, palmistry, etc., Saturn was a horrible scheme, and, hardened as he
malign influence both on the person was, he was intensely excited as its
into whose horoscope he comes and consummation approached.

those connected with him, and involved 37. venereal'] erotic ; does not occur
disaster and misfortune, if not crime, again in Shakespeare, used by Nash,
Chaucer, who was an adept in astro- Anatomie of Absurditie (M‘Kerrow,
logy, describes particularly the malign 1904), i. 19. Chaucer uses “ venerien,”
influence of Saturn in The Knights Wtfe of Bathls Prologue^ 609, in the
Tale. Collins quotes from Beaumont same sense.

and Fletcher, * ‘ sullen Saturn, ” etc. F or 39. Blood and revenge are hammering

“dominator,” ruler, see “ Dominator of in my head] is a precise description of
Lovers Labour's Lost^ i. i. 222. the “drumming” of the blood in one’s

32. deadly -standing] fixed and star- head under intense excitement. How
ing like that of the dead. This and true too is the psychology of the scene !
the rest of the passage savour no doubt With the woman, her passion drowns
of what to modern taste is balderdash ; her desire for revenge ; with the man,
but this is no argument that it was not the desire for the success of his infamous
written by Shakespeare, at least in his scheme keeps his passion in abeyance.

40

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

Thy sons make pillage of her chastity,

And wash their hands in Bassianus' blood. 45

Seest thou this letter? take it up, I pray thee,

And give the king this fatal-plotted scroll.

Now question me no more ; we are espied ;

Here comes a parcel of our hopeful booty,

Which dreads not yet their lives^ destruction. 50

Tam. Ah ! my sweet Moor, sweeter to me than life.

Aar. No more, great empress ; Bassianus comes :

Be cross with him ; and I ^11 go fetch thy sons
To back thy quarrels, whatsoe'er they be. \Exit.

Enter Bassianus and Lavinia.

Bass. Whom have we here ? Rome’s royal empress, 5 S
Unfurnish’d of her well-beseeming troop ?

Or is it Dian, habited like her.

Who hath abandoned her holy groves.

To see the general hunting in this forest?

Tam. Saucy controller of our private steps ! 60

Had I the power that some say Dian had,

Thy temples should be planted presently
With horns, as was Actaeon’s ; and the hounds

Cf. Two Gentlemen^ i. iii. i8 ; ^ Henry 56. well-beseemtng iroop] the guard
V/. I. ii. 47, etc. or following suitable to her as Empress.

47. fatal-plotted^ contrived to a fatal 1 Hcfiry TV. I. i. 14.

end ; the only instance in Shakespeare. 57. Dtan'\ intensely sarcastic, of

48. question"] discuss. Sonnets, Ixvii. course.

9; Henry VIII . i. i. 130. 63. With horns] Shakespeare seems

49. parcel] part, portion, party. See never to tire of the subject of horns, as

Love’s Labour’s Lost, v. li. “A implying cuckoldry. In The Merry

holy parcel of the fairest dames !” Wives, in Much Ado, Love’s Labour’s

53. Be cross with him] perverse or Lost, As You Like It, and many other
rude, so as to pick a quarrel with him. plays, he returns again and again to this

54. To back thy quarrels] support theme, which to us is alike indecorous

you in your quarrels. and banal. It evidently found favour

56. unaccompanied by, with Elizabethan and Jacobean audi-

or depriv^ of. Winter’s Tale, v. i. 123. ences.

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

41

Should drive upon thy new-transformed limbs,
Unmannerly intruder as thou art! 65

Lav. Under your patience, gentle empress,

Tis thought you have a goodly gift in horning ;

And to be doubted that your Moor and you
Are singled forth to try experiments.

Jove shield your husband from his hounds to-day! 70
’Tis pity they should take him for a stag.

Bass. Believe me, queen, your swarth Cimmerian
Doth make your honour of his body’s hue.

Spotted, detested, and abominable.

Why are you sequester’d from all your train, 75

Dismounted from your snow-white goodly steed.

And wander’d hither to an obscure plot.

Accompanied but with a barbarous Moor,

If foul desire had not conducted you ?

Lav. And, being intercepted in your sport, 80

Great reason that my noble lord be rated

64. drive] let drive, attack. See
Hamlet, ii. ii. 494.

66. Under yotir patience, etc.] Ex-
ception has been taken by some critics,
especially by Arthur Symons in his
able introduction to the Facsimile of the
First Quarto of this play, to Lavima’s
language here. See Introduction, p.
xlvii et seq.

69. singled] See previous note.

72. swartk] swart, swarthy. Q l
gives “swarty.” Cf. Sonnets, xxviii.
II ; and Beaumont and Fletcher,
Island Princess, vi., “Foul swarth
ingratitude has taken off thy sweet-
ness.”

72. Cimmerian] one of a people
from whom, according to Plutarch,
Homer took his conceptions of the
dark infernal regions, in which he was
followed by Virgil and Ovid. There
were two peoples or nations of this

name, one located in Asia Minor and
South Russia (where they left the name
Crimea), and another dwelling on the
coast of Campania, a robber race who
lived in caves, where they concealed
their booty, and from them the idea of
Cimmerian darkness seems to have
come.

74. Spotted] that is tainted or infected
as with a plague; frequent in Shake-
speare, as Lucrece, 196, 721, 1172;
Othello, V. i. 36 ; Midsummer-Night's
Dream, I. i. no, etc. etc. Surely Mr.
Symons was thinking of this speech
of Bassianus when he characterises
Lavinia’s language so strongly ! The
dramatist obviously wishes from the
first to divert a portion of our sympathy
to Tamora, and make her revenges, if
horrible, still natural in one whose feel-
ings have been cruelly outraged from
the first.

42 TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

For sauciness. I pray you, let us hence,

And let her joy her raven-colour’d love ;

This valley fits the purpose passing well.

Bass, The king my brother shall have note of this. 8 5

Lav, Ay, for these slips have made him noted long :

Good king, to be so mightily abus'd !

Tam, Why have I patience to endure all this ?

Enter DEMETRIUS and CHIRON.

Dem, How now, dear sovereign, and our gracious mother!

Why doth your highness look so pale and wan ? 90

Tam, Have I not reason, think you, to look pale?

These two have tic'd me hither to this place :

A barren detested vale, you see, it is ;

83. joy\ to enjoy ; several times in
Shakespeare in this sense, as Richard
II, V. vi. 26 ; Richard III, ii. iv. 59,
etc.

86. slips\ offences, faults, as Hamlet^
II. i. 22, “wanton, wild, and usual
slips, ” etc.

86. him noted long\ There is, as Dr.
Johnson pointed out, something very
wrong about the chronology of this part
of the play. This line alone makes it
evident that some interval had elapsed
since Tamora’s marriage, and the only
place where this interval can possibly
come in is between the two Acts, and
not, as Dr. Johnson suggests, between
Scenes l and 2 of this Act, which are
obviously closely consecutive in point
of time, as Aaron says in Scene i, “ My
lord, a solemn hunting is at hand.’’
The interval can thus only come, as is
natural, between the two Acts. The
only solution I can see is that there
were two hunts in the play, one at the
invitation of Titus on the day after Act
I. closes, and a second later on, after
an interval of at least weeks, if not
months ; and I think that Aaron’s

opening speech implies, not only that
Tamora was made Empress, but also
that she had obtained complete control
over Saturnmus, which might be the
work of some little time. Steevens con-
jectures “her” for “him.” This is
possibly right, especially as in earlier
versions of the play the intrigue is even
more obvious than in Shakespeare’s.
See Introduction, p. Ixxix.

92. tiddi enticed, in Q i “deed.”
The Quarto printer did not use the form
“’d,” but marked the silence of the
“ e ” either by omission as in “ showd,”
or by the old form “de” or “d” as
“calde” and “cald” in this same
speech. It is possible that “deed”
was meant for a disyllable, making
“ticed me ” a dactyl.

93. A barren^ etc.'\ This is un-
doubtedly a powerful description, and
by no means unworthy of Shakespeare
in his earlier days. Tamora, in order
to excite her sons to fury, invents a
quite imaginary narrative about the
abhorred pit, and exaggerates Bassianus*
and Lavinia’s language. This speech
has the further dramatic function of

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

43

The trees, though summer, yet forlorn and lean.
Overcome with moss and baleful mistletoe: 95

Here never shines the sun ; here nothing breeds,
Unless the nightly owl or fatal raven :

And when they showed me this abhorred pit,

They told me, here, at dead time of the night,

A thousand fiends, a thousand hissing, snakes, lOO
Ten thousand swelling toads, as many urchins.

Would make such fearful and confused cries,

As any mortal body hearing it

Should straight fall mad, or else die suddenly.

No sooner had they told this hellish tale, 105

But straight they told me they would bind me here
Unto the body of a dismal yew.

And leave me to this miserable death :

And then they call’d me foul adulteress,

Lascivious Goth, and all the bitterest terms 1 1 0

That ever ear did hear to such effect ;

And, had you not by wondrous fortune come.

This vengeance on me had they executed.

Revenge it, as you love your mother’s life.

Or be ye not henceforth call’d my children. 1 1 5

describing the pit (which could not be been enticed into a horrible and danger-
staged, and was represented merely by ous place.

a trap-door) to the audience. “Barren 95. Overcome] overcome, conquered,

detested ” may be scanned as a slurred covered by ; not elsewhere in Shake-

or as a dactylic foot = -«w-w. The speare in this sense.

inconsistency betw’een the two descrip- loi. hedgehogs. We retain

tions of her surroundings by Tamora the term in “ sea-urchin.”

has been pointed out ; but I think it is 103. dody] (as in Scotch) person.

meant to reflect her own change of Two Gentlemen, i. ii. 18, etc.

mood, from the pleasurable anticipation 104. Should straight, etc.'\ This,

of enjoyment with her lover to the state Johnson remarks, was said in fabulous

of doubt and apprehension into which physiology of those who heard the groan

the presence of Bassianus and Lavinia of the mandrake when torn up. See

threw her. She also wishes to excite Romeo, iv. iii. 48.

her sons by representing that she had 115. Or he ye not, etc.] This line does

44

TITUS ANDRONICUS [acth.

Dent, This is a witness that I am thy son.

[Stabs Bassianus,

CAl And this for me, struck home to show my strength.

[Also stabs Bassianus, who dies.
Lav, Ay, come, Semiramis, nay, barbarous Tamora ;

For no name fits thy nature but thy own.

Tam, Give me thy poniard ; you shall know, my boys, 120
Your mother’s hand shall right your mother’s wrong.
Dem, Stay, madam ; here is more belongs to her :

First thrash the corn, then after burn the straw.

This minion stood upon her chastity.

Upon her nuptial vow, her loyalty, 125

And with that painted hope she braves your mightiness :
And shall she carry this unto her grave ?

Chi, An if she do, I would I were an eunuch.

Drag hence her husband to some secret hole.

And make his dead trunk pillow to our lust. 130
Tam, But when ye have the honey ye desire.

Let not this wasp outlive, us both to sting.

not run well as it stands, an unusual
thing in this play. To my mind it runs
better with “callM” for “call’d,”
making a pause after “henceforth,” so
as to get the stress on “ call.”

1 18. Semiramis'] Queen of Assyria
may best be described as an ancient
Catherine of Russia, famous at once for
her ability as a ruler and her insatiable
sexual passion.

124. minion] here in the contemp-
tuous and opprobrious sense of the
word, which originally meant darling,
favourite, and is used by Shakespeare
in that sense also, just as we still use
the word “mistress” in an honourable
or dishonourable sense. The word is
the same as the French Mignon^ and
connected with the first part of the word

minne- singer. In Scotch it appears as
“minnie,” but in the favourable sense.

124. stood upon] prided herself
upon, or maintained, or perhaps it
involves both ideas or valuing and
preserving her virtue.

126. painted hope] unreal, vain, as in
“painted pomp,” As You Like It, ii.
i- 3 ; “painted peace,” King John, ill.
i. 105. This line must be read with a
pause or rest after “hope.”

130. And make] a very brutal touch,
which Shakespeare, if even only editor
of the play, might well have spared us.
It is, moreover, inconsistent with what
follows, and seems wantonly thrown in
to pile up the horror; or perhaps it
is a survival from a cruder form of the
play.

sc. in.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

45

Chi, I warrant you, madam, we will make that sure.

Come, mistress, now perforce we will enjoy
That n ice-preserved honesty of yours. 135

Lav. O Tamora ! thou bear'st a woman's face, —

Tam. I will not hear her speak ; away with her !

Lav. Sweet lords, entreat her hear me but a word.

Dem. Listen, fair madam : let it be your glory

To see her tears ; but be your heart to them 140
As unrelenting flint to drops of rain.

Lav. When did the tiger’s young ones teach the dam ?

O ! do not learn her wrath ; she taught it thee ;

The milk thou suck’dst from her did turn to marble ;
Even at thy teat thou hadst thy tyranny. 145

Yet every mother breeds not sons alike :

\To Chiron^ Do thou entreat her show a woman pity.

Chi. What ! would’st thou have me prove myself a bastard ?
Lav, ’Tis true the raven doth not hatch a lark :

Yet have I heard, O ! could I find it now, 150

The lion mov’d with pity did endure

135. nice - preserved^ carefully pre- It is the mother that teaches, and they
served, or coyly preserved. As ‘ ‘ nice ” remain with her till their second year
has also the meaning of coy, prudish, as {Chambers's Encyclopcedia).

“she is nice and coy,” Two Gentle- 144. The milky etc.] This seems in
men, ill. i. 82. accord with the popular notion, not

137. / will not hear her speaky etc.] unsupported by facts, that a man’s dis-
Tamora does not seem quite sure of position comes largely from his mother’s
herself, and appears anxious to have side, while the type of feature that per-
Lavinia dragged away before she, sists is that of the male side. We are
Tamora, relents. This seems to me a here also reminded of Lady Macbeth
very subtle touch. Lavinia, who cer- and of Macbeth’s speech to her, Mac-
tainly is very maladroit, throws away bethy i. vii. 73.

her opportunity by attacking Tamora 149. raven doth not] The raven, the
as the tiger’s dam. See Introduction, bird of night and evil omen, is m sharp
p. xlvii et seq. contrast to the lark, the bird of morning

142. Whendidy etc.] This seems like and sunlight,
a touch of Shakespeare’s encyclopaedic 150. 0 ! could I find it now] O
knowledge, as it is a fact that young would I could now experience the fact
tigers (like kittens) require to be taught that a mild nature can spring from a
to hunt and do not do it by instinct, fierce one.

46

TITUS ANDRONICUS [acth.

To have his princely claws par’d all away.

Some say that ravens foster forlorn children,

The whilst their own birds famish in their nests :

O ! be to me, though thy hard heart say no, 155
Nothing so kind, but something pitiful.

Tam, I know not what it means ; away with her !

Lav, O ! let me teach thee : for my father’s sake.

That gave thee life when well he might have slain
thee.

Be not obdurate, open thy deaf ears. 1 60

Tam, Hadst thou in person ne’er offended me.

Even for his sake am I pitiless.

Remember, boys, I pour’d forth tears in vain
To save your brother from the sacrifice ;

But fierce Andronicus would not relent: 165

Therefore, away with her, and use her as you will :

The worse to her, the better lov’d of me.

Lav. O Tamora ! be call’d a gentle queen.

And with thine own hands kill me in this place ;

For ’tis not life that I have begg’d so long ; 1 70

152. claws\ This is clearly the mean- 154. birds] nestlings. Cf. 1 Henry
ing, but it is a gloss of Collins, as both VI. v. i. 60, and 3 Henry VI. ii. i.
Q I and F I have “ paws. ” Apparently 91, and in North of Ireland dialect
an allusion to the standard anecdote of (Craig), the original meaning of the
Androcles and the lion, as Androcles word. New Eng. Diet.

had probably to cut away the claws 156. Nothing so kind] This line has
before removing the thorn. to my ear a genuine ring of Shake-

153. ravens^ etc.] This was evidently speare ; it means not so much as kind
a piece of popular folk-lore, whether but only pitiful. 2 Henry VI. v. ii. 65.
arising from the biblical story of Elijah 1 58. for my father s sake] Another
or no, as we have it in Winter s Tale^ instance of Lavinia’s maladroitness.
II. hi. 186. I doubt whether any She was thinking no doubt of Titus’
modern instance could be cited of this sparing Tamora and her sons in the
voluntary foster- motherhood to human first instance, whereas she only succeeds
infants, but there are authenticated in- in reminding Tamora of his cruelty to
stances of female animals adopting and Alarbus.

fostering animals of a different species 170. For ^ tis not life] Shthsishiiheiio
for their own. been pleading to be spared altogether,

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

47

Poor I was slain when Bassianus died.

Tam. What begg'st thou then? fond woman, let
me go,

Lav. 'Tis present death I beg ; and one thing more
That womanhood denies my tongue to tell.

O ! keep me from their worse than killing lust, 175
And tumble me into some loathsome pit.

Where never man’s eye may behold my body :

Do this, and be a charitable murderer.

Tam. So should I rob my sweet sons of their fee :

No, let them satisfy their lust on thee. 180

Dem. Away ! for thou hast stay’d us here too long.

Lav. No grace ! no womanhood ! Ah ! beastly creature.
The blot and enemy to our general name.

Confusion fall —

Chi. Nay, then I ’ll stop your mouth. Bring thou her
husband : 185

This is the hole where Aaron bid us hide him.

[^Demetrius throws the body of Bassianus into
the pit ; then exeunt De^netrius and
Chiron, dragging ojf Lavinia.

Tam. Farewell, my sons : see that you make her sure.

Ne’er let my heart know merry cheer indeed
Till all the Andronici be made away.

although life is no longer life for her
since Bassianus is dead. Now she asks
only for death, or even to be cast into
the horrible pit, so long as she is spared
outrage. But the unfortunate allusion
to Titus has steeled Tamora’s heart
afresh, and she ruthlessly hands over
Lavinia to the two Bashibazouks.

182. ifeastly creature] like a beast,
coarse, bestial Addressed to Tamora,

183. The blot and enemy, etc.] the
blot on, and enemy to the good fame of
women in general.

185. Nay. then, etc.] Chiron, who
was the more sentimental in his
speeches, is the worse ruffian of the
two.

186. Demetrius throws, etc.] As
pointed out above, they do not use Bas-
sianus’s body as proposed.

48

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

Now will I hence to seek my lovely Moor, 190

And let my spleenful sons this trull deflower. [Exit.

Re-enter Aaron, with QuiNTUS and Martius.

Aar, Come on, my lords, the better foot before :

Straight will I bring you to the loathsome pit
Where I espied the panther fast asleep.

Quint, My sight is very dull, whatever it bodes. 195

Mart, And mine, I promise you : were 't not for shame.
Well could I leave our sport to sleep awhile.

[^Falls into the pit.

Quint, What ! art thou falFn ? What subtle hole is
this,

Whose mouth is cover’d with rude-growing briers,
Upon whose leaves are drops of new-shed blood 200
As fresh as morning dew distill’d on flowers ?

A very fatal place it seems to me.

Speak, brother, hast thou hurt thee with the fall ?

Mart, O brother ! with the dismall’st object hurt

That ever eye with sight made heart lament. 205

190. Ncnv will I kence] Tamora is but Tamora is thinking that Lavinia,
swayed by the two strong passions of having been so dreadfully outraged, will
revenge and desire, and the latter, if be reduced to the condition of one of
possible, gains the ascendant. these unfortunates.

190, 19 1. Moor . . . deflowei-'] These 192. the better foot before'] best

are good rhymes, as in Shakespeare’s foot foremost. The better foot is the
time words in “our” and “ower” moie correct, as we have only two
rhymed with “moor,” “ poor,” etc. — but modern usage is lax in this

191. spleenful] here in the sense of respect.

hot, eager, hasty, 2 Henry VI, ill. ii. 195. My sight is very dull, etc,] I
128. The spleen was regarded as the confess this speech and all that follows
seat of the emotions, and was used m to the end of the scene seems very poor
Middle English where we would use stuff in every way. The two valiant
heart. Dunbar has “ fro the spleen ” = sons of Titus behave quite out of
from the heart, The Thistle and the character, unless they are to be sup-
Rose, 12. posed under the influence of some spell

191. trull] a drab, a loose woman, or drug, which, if the case, should be
Of course a gross libel on Lavinia, more clearly indicated.

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

49

Aar, \Aside^ Now will I fetch the king to find them here,
That he thereby may give a likely guess
How these were they that made away his brother.

\Exit,

Mart, Why dost not comfort me, and help me out

From this unhallow’d and blood-stained hole? 210
Quint. I am surprised with an uncouth fear;

A chilling sweat o’er-runs my trembling joints :

My heart suspects more than mine eyes can see.

Mart, To prove thou hast a true-divining heart,

Aaron and thou look down into this den, 215

And see a fearful sight of blood and death.

Quint. Aaron is gone ; and my compassionate heart
Will not permit mine eyes once to behold
The thing whereat it trembles by surmise.

O ! tell me how it is ; for ne’er till now 220

Was I a child, to fear I know not what.

Mart. Lord Bassianus lies embrewed here,

206. Now will /, etc.l This and the
whole contrivance of the scene appears
to me very loose and clumsy, and could
have deceived no one who did not want
to be deceived. All indeed that can be
said in defence of it is that Saturninus
was probably glad of his brother’s
death, and only too glad of a pretext
for attacking the Andronici, to which
he was of course secretly instigated
by Tamora.

21 1, uncoulk] literally, unknown,
strange, unfamiliar, and here probably
like the Scotch “uncanny,” which is
practically the same word, implying
something supernatural.

219. dy surmtso] even in surmising,
without sight or actual knowledge.
What this unmeaning influence is sup-
posed to be is not made clear. Was
It the presence of the ghost of the
murdered Bassianus? or some general

4

supernatural horrors spread about the
place by the execrable crimes just com-
mitted there, like the portents on the
night of Duncan’s murder?

222. embrewed'\ imbrued with blood,
or slain. “ Embrew ” or “imbrue”
has two meanings in Shakespeare,
different from the modern sense — (i)
intransitive, to stab, attack, or kill, with
no subject expressed, as in 2 Henry 1 V.
II. IV. 210, where Pistol says, “Shall
we have incision, shall we imbrue?”
and (2) transitive, as here = stabbed,
slain, or murdered, and also in Mid~
summer - Night* s Dream, V. 35 1, in
Thisbe’s song, “ Come, blade, my breast
imbrue.” It is extremely curious that
this word, which only occurs in these
three instances in Shakespeare, should
in two of them be associated with the
story of Pyramus and Thisbe.

50

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

All on a heap, like to a slaughter'd lamb,

In this detested, dark, blood-drinking pit.

Quint, If it be dark, how dost thou know 'tis he ? 225

Mart, Upon his bloody finger he doth wear
A precious ring, that lightens all the hole,

Which, like a taper in some monument.

Doth shine upon the dead man’s earthy cheeks,

And shows the ragged entrails of this pit: 230

So pale did shine the moon on Pyramus
When he by night lay bath’d in maiden blood.

O brother ! help me with thy fainting hand.

If fear hath made thee faint, as me it hath.

Out of this fell devouring receptacle, 235

As hateful as Cocytus’ misty mouth.

Quint, Reach me thy hand, that I may help thee out ;

Or, wanting strength to do thee so much good,

223. All on a heap'] all in a heap.

223. slaughter' d lafnb] is a vivid and
yet rather unsatisfactory image. It has
not Shakespeare’s usual felicity.

224. etc.] See similar but finer pas-
sage, Romeo and Juliet^ iii. v. 54.

227. A precious ring] It was believed
as late as the time of Boyle, who credits
it, that the carbuncle gave out radiance
of its own in the dark. Thus in the
Gesta Romamrum (where Shakespeare
may have got it), “he further beheld
and saw a carbuncle that lighted all the
house,” quoted by Steevens, who also
quotes from Drayton’s Musds Eljfsium,
“Is that admired mighty stone. The
carbuncle that’s named,” etc. It was
also supposed to enable people to walk
invisible {Chambers' s Encyclopcedia),

229. earthy cheeks] Did Keats think
of this when describing the lover’s
ghost (“ his loamed ears ”) in “Isabella,
or The Pot of Basil,” xxxv. 7 ?

230. ragged] rugged. Two Gentle-
men ^ I. ii. 121 ; also Isaiah ii. 21.

230. entrails] inward parts, New
Eng. Diet, vi, 215. So “ bowels of
the land,” Richard III. V. li. 3.

236. Cocytus' misty mouth] Cocytus,
one of the six rivers in the infernal
regions. “Misty mouth” rings rather
like one of those obvious and excessive
alliterations that Shakespeare himself
ridicules in Midsummer- Night' s Dream.
Still he may have written this in the
days of his youth, as Mr. Swinburne
in his Heptologia has an admirable
parody on himself. Like most young
writers, Shakespeare probably prided
himself on his happy phrases, and he
afterwards satirised perhaps even his
own preciosity in Hamlet over the
phrase “mobled queen.”

238. ( 9 r, wanting strength] This and
similar speeches seem singularly out of
place on the part of two brave and
vigorous young men, unless there is
some specific cause for it which is not
given. Shakespeare may have got this
notion from Marlowe, who uses it

sc. HI.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

51

I may be plucked into the swallowing womb

Of this deep pit, poor Bassianus* grave. 240

I have no strength to pluck thee to the brink.

Mart. Nor I no strength to climb without thy help.

Quint. Thy hand once more ; I will not loose again,

Till thou art here aloft, or I below.

Thou canst not come to me: I come to thee. 245

[Falls in.

Re-enter Aaron with Saturninus.

Sat. Along with me : I 'll see what hole is here.

And what he is that now is leap'd into it.

Say, who art thou that lately didst descend
Into this gaping hollow of the earth ?

Mart. The unhappy son of old Andronicus ; 250

Brought hither in a most unlucky hour.

To find thy brother Bassianus dead.

Sat. My brother dead ! I know thou dost but jest :

He and his lady both are at the lodge.

Upon the north side of this pleasant chase; 255

'Tis not an hour since I left him there.

Mart. We know not where you left him all alive ;

But, out, alas ! here have we found him dead.

Re-enter Tamora, with Attendants ; TlXUS
Andronicus, and Lucius.

Tam. Where is my lord the king?

often. On the other hand, he makes 246. Along\ Come along, etc.

Duncan “fey,” i.e. in preternaturally 255. chase] a park use for hunting,

high spirits, on the night before his Survives in names of estates, as “ Cran-
murder. bourn Chase,” Dorset. See Two

242. Nor I no, etc.] A double Gentlemen, i. ii. 116, also Bacon’s
negative, very frequent in Shakespeare Essay on Expence, and Malory, Morte
and in all writers before and during (T Arthur.
his time. See Abbott, par. 406.

52

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

Sat Here, Tamora; though griev’d with killing grief. 260
Tam, Where is thy brother Bassianus ?

Sat Now to the bottom dost thou search my wound:

Poor Bassianus here lies murdered.

Tam, Then all too late I bring this fatal writ,

{Giving a letter.

The complot of this timeless tragedy; 265

And wonder greatly that man’s face can fold
In pleasing smiles such murderous tyranny.

Sat. An if we miss to meet him hands 07 nely ^

Sweet huntsman^ Bassianus ^tis we mean^

Do thou so much as dig the grave for him : 270

Thou know'st our meaning. Look for thy reward
Among the nettles at the elder-tree

262. search] probe with a roll of
lint.

264. writ] writing, from “writ,’’ a
contracted form of the past-participle
of write, and that generally used in
Shakespeare.

265. co?nplot] conspiracy, plot ; pro-
nounced here “complot,” but “com-
pl6t,” Richard III, ill. i. 192.

265. timeless] untimely, as in Two
Gentlemen^ ill. i. 21.

266. fold] conceal, as Lucrece^ 1073.

268. An if we miss, etc.] seems to

mean that if the writer fails to meet
Bassianus and kill him himself, the
receiver of the writ is to kill Bassianus
and bury him in the said pit. Any-
thing clumsier than such a letter be-
tween conspirators, naming the person
plotted against twice in full, cannot be
conceived. Fancy an anarchist writing
to another and designating his victim
as the “Empress of Austria” or the
“Czar of Russia”! I cannot help
thinking that in this scene we have,
more than in almost any other part of
the play, relics of an older and cruder

version of the story. The whole scene
is an excellent example of what
Aristotle wisely warns the dramatist
against, namely, the “improbable
possible,” to which he profoundly says
the “probable impossible” is much
preferable. No amount of startling
prodigies would have produced in my
mind so much incredibility as the series
of “improbable possibilities” which
make up this scene. Nothing indeed
in the whole play throws, to my mind,
so much doubt on its Shakespearian
authorship as the feeble handling of
this portion of the play’s action. The
only point made is to show up the
obvious prejudice and injustice of
Saturninus ; but this is surely attained
at too great a cost.

272. elder-tree] This was popularly
supposed to be unhealthy, something
like the upas-tree, though there seems
to be no justification for the belief,
which seems to have arisen from the
notion that Judas hung himself on an
elder-tree. Cf. Love's Labour's Lost,
V. ii. 610 ; Cymbeline, iv. ii. 59.

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

53

Which overshades the mouth of that same pit
Where we decreed to bury Bassianus :

Do this, and purchase us thy lasting friends, 275

0 Tamora! was ever heard the like?

This is the pit, and this the elder-tree.

Look, sirs, if you can find the huntsman out
That should have murder'd Bassianus here.

Aar, My gracious lord, here is the bag of gold. 280

Sat, \To Titusl\ Two of thy whelps, fell curs of bloody
kind.

Have here bereft my brother of his life.

Sirs, drag them from the pit unto the prison :

There let them bide until we have devis'd
Some never-heard-of torturing pain for them. 285
Tam, What ! are they in this pit ? O wondrous thing !

How easily murder is discovered !

Tit. High emperor, upon my feeble knee

1 beg this boon with tears not lightly shed ;

That this fell fault of my apcursqd sons, 290

Accursed, if the fault be prov'd in them, —

Sat, If it be prov'd ! you see it is apparent.

Who found this letter ? Tamora, was it you ?

Tam. Andronicus himself did take it up.

Tit, I did, my lord : yet let me be their bail ; 295

‘ For, by my fathers’ reverend tomb, I vow
They shall be ready at your highness' will
To answer their suspicion with their lives.

Sat, Thou shalt not bail them : see thou follow me.

^287. How easily"] a piece of profound entertained of them. A common con-
irony. struction in Shakespeare of using the

298. their suspicion] the suspicion possessive pronoun for the personal.

54

TITUS ANDRONICUS [acth.

Some bring the murder'd body, some the mur-
derers : 300

Let them not speak a word ; the guilt is plain ;

For, by my soul, were there worse end than death,
That end upon them should be executed.

Tam, Andronicus, I will entreat the king :

Fear not thy sons, they shall do well enough. 305
Tit, Come, Lucius, come ; stay not to talk with them.

\Exeunt,

SCENE IV. — Another part of the Forest,

Enter DEMETRIUS and Chiron, with Lavinia, ravished ;
her hands cut offy and her tongue cut out.

Dem, So, now go tell, an if thy tongue can speak,

Who 'twas that cut thy tongue and ravish'd thee.

Chi, Write down thy mind, bewray thy meaning so ;

An if thy stumps will let thee play the scribe.

Dem, See, how with signs and tokens she can scrawl. 5
Chi, Go home, call for sweet water, wash thy hands.

Dem, She hath no tongue to call, nor hands to wash ;

And so let 's leave her to her silent walks.

Chi, An 'twere my case, I should go hang myself

Dem, If thou hadst hands to help thee knit the cord. 10

\Exeunt Demetrius and Chiron,

304. Andronicus y I will entreat the
king] Tamora here, as later on, under-
estimates Titus’ powers of perception
of character, which his trials rather
awaken than diminish.

305. Fear not, etc,] fear not for.
Very frequent in Shakespeare.

Scene iv,

5. she can scrawl] Is this another

instance of irony which makes a
character unconsciously suggest that
which is to befall him or her?

6. sweet water] perfumed water, as
in Fomeo and Juliet, v. hi. 14, “which
with sweet water nightly I will dew ” ;
or fresh, pure.

10. knit] tie. This scene is very
brutal, but quite in character with the
two Bashibazouks. I wish I could

sc.iv.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

55

Enter MARCUS.

Marc, Who 's this ? my niece, that flies away so fast !
Cousin, a word ; where is your husband ?

If I do dream, would all my wealth would wake me !
If I do wake, some planet strike me down.

That I may slumber in eternal sleep ! 1 5

Speak, gentle niece, what stern ungentle hands
Have lopp’d and hew’d and made thy body bare
Of her two branches, those sweet ornaments,

Whose circling shadows kings have sought to sleep in.
And might not gain so great a happiness 20

As have thy love ? Why dost not speak to me ?

Alas ! a crimson river of warm blood.

Like to a bubbling fountain stirr’d with wind,

Doth rise and fall between thy rosed lips,

Coming and going with thy honey breath. 2 5

But, sure, some Tereus hath deflower’d thee.

And, lest thou should’st detect him, cut thy tongue.

think it quite un- Shakespearian ; but
the grim play on the same words
“hand” and “tongue” is rather like
his cruder work. We must be thankful
for the scene’s one merit — its brevity.

12. Coushtl near relation, male or
female ; frequent in this sense, q.s in As
You Like i. ii. 164, and i. in. 44.
As in German Tante and Onkel are
used very loosely, and even of friends
who are no relations.

13. would all niy wealthy etc,'\ means
he would give or forfeit all his wealth
to wake and find it a dream.

19. Whose circling shadows^ etc.] A
fine line, referring to both Saturninus
and Bassianus being suitors for her
hand, who, if not literally kings, were
of royal rank, as born to the purple
and candidates for the empire. The
style of the verse and the literary merit

of this piece rises somewhat here above
the lower level of the immediately
preceding scenes.

23. Like to a bubbling^ etc.] A fine
image, although the theme is so pain-
ful. The whole speech indeed seems
intended for the reader rather than
the spectator, who could see Lavinia’s
deplorable condition for himself. Any
skilful playwright, such as Shakespeare
became later, would ruthlessly cut most
of this speech out of the book. It
seems like the attempt of a young
writer to display his powers of de-
scription and of classical lore.

26. Tereus] A king of Thrace, son
of Mars and Bistonis, who, according
to the well-known story, being married
to Progne (the swallow), violated her
sister Philomela (the nightingale). Lu-
crece^ 1134 ; CymbelinCy ii. ii. 45.

56

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actii.

Ah ! now thou turn’s! away thy face for shame ;

And, notwithstanding all this loss of blood,

As from a conduit with three issuing spouts, 30

Yet do thy cheeks look red as Titan’s face
Blushing to be encounter’d with a cloud.

Shall I speak for thee ? shall I say ’tis so ?

O ! that I knew thy heart ; and knew the beast,

That I might rail at him to ease my mind. 35

Sorrow concealed, like an oven stopp’d.

Doth burn the heart to cinders where it is.

Fair Philomela, she but lost her tongue,

And in a tedious sampler sew’d her mind :

But, lovely niece, that mean is cut from thee ; 40

A craftier Tereus hast thou met withal.

And he hath cut those pretty fingers off.

That could have better sew’d than Philomel.

O ! had the monster seen those lily hands
Tremble, like aspen-leaves, upon a lute, 45

And make the silken strings delight to kiss them.

He would not then have touch’d them for his life ;

Or had he heard the heavenly harmony

31. Titan\ Hyperion, the old
sun-god, and one of the Titans who
fought against Jupiter. The subject of
Keats’ poem of that name.

32. Blushingy etc.] An allusion to
the red appearance of the sun through
cloud or mist. The image is rather
forced, as applied to poor Lavinia
blushing at the consciousness of her
outraged condition.

36. Sorrow concealed ^ etc.'\ Avery fine,
if homely, image.

36. stopfd'l closed up. I think
probably the author had in his mind a
primitive earthen or turf oven, which
could be closed with a sod.

39. sampler"] Philomela, according
to the myth, made known her wrongs
by sewing or broidering words on a
sampler.

40. mean] a singular form, which has
been displaced by the plural “means,”
which, however, takes in Shakespeare
a verb in the singular.

41. A craftier^ etc.] See F I. Q i
reads “a craftier Tereus cousin hast
thou met,” which is perhaps the better
of the two.

45. Tremble^ like aspendeaves, etc.]
A very beautiful picture of the deft
fingering of a graceful and skilled lute-
player.

sc. IV.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

57

Which that sweet tongue hath made,

He would have dropp'd his knife, and fell asleep, 50
As Cerberus at the Thracian poet’s feet.

Come, let us go, and make thy father blind ;

For such a sight will blind a father’s eye :

One hour’s storm will drown the fragrant meads ;
What will whole months of tears thy father’s eyes ? 5 5
Do not draw back, for we will mourn with thee :

O ! could our mourning ease thy misery, \Exeunt,

ACT III

SCENE I. — Rome. A Street.

Enter Senators^ Tribunes^ and Officers of JusttcCy with
Martius and Quintus, bounds passing on to the
place of execution ; Titus going before^ pleading.

Tit. Hear me, grave fathers ! noble tribunes, stay !

For pity of mine age, whose youth was spent
In dangerous wars, whilst you securely slept ;

For all my blood in Rome’s great quarrel shed ;

For all the frosty nights that I have watch’d ; 5

And for these bitter tears, which now you see
Filling the aged wrinkles in my cheeks ;

Be pitiful to my condemned sons,

Whose souls are not corrupted as ’tis thought.

50. fell\ fallen. As also Lear^ iv.

vi. 54 (Abbott). Act III. Scene /.

51. Thracian poet] Orpheus.

54. hour^s] dissyllable, as such 7. aged'\ characteristic of age.
words usually are in Shakespeare, as Tempest ^ iv. i. 261.
later in Keats,

58

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actih.

For two-and-twenty sons I never wept, lO

Because they died in honour’s lofty bed :

For these, these, tribunes, in the dust I write

{Throwing himself on the gf'ound.
My heart’s deep languor and my soul’s sad tears.

Let my tears stanch the earth’s dry appetite ;

My sons’ sweet blood will make it shame and blush. 1 5
{Exeunt Senators^ Tribunes^ etc,,
with the Prisoners,

O earth ! I will befriend thee more with rain.

That shall distil from these two ancient urns.

Than youthful April shall with all his showers :

In summer’s drought I ’ll drop upon thee still ;

In winter with warm tears I ’ll melt the snow, 20
And keep eternal spring-time on thy face,

So thou refuse to drink my dear sons’ blood.

Enter LUCIUS, with his sword drawn,

O reverend tribunes ! gentle aged men !

Unbind my sons, reverse the doom of death ;

And let me say, that never wept before, 2 5

10. two~and 4 wenty\ See above, Act Lear, determined to humble the

I. i. 79. haughty spirit of his hero to the

11. honour's lofty bed] Honour is uttermost.

here personified in the feminine, as in 14. Used hereof drinking, or

1 Henry IV, iii. 202, 205. The meaning desire, need ; another instance of strictly
is that honour was a mistress whose classic use of a word of Latin derivation,
favour they had won. In somewhat the 17. ancient urns] his eyes, the reser-
same way Macbeth is called “ Bellona’s voirs of his tears. Both F i and Q i
bridegroom,” Mctcbeth, i. ii. 54. have “ mines,” which makes no sense.

12. For these, these, etc,] is a gloss Oxford edition gives “urns.”

of F 2 to supply lacking syllable. 18. Than youthful April] stems lik^
Malone suggests “good tribunes.” a reminiscence of the opening lines of
Surely simplest of all is “O tribunes,” Chaucer’s Prologue,
as the O would be more easily dropped 23. O reverend tribunes! etc,] F i
than a whole word. and Q i have “ oh gentler,” which will

12. in the dust, etc,] The author of scan quite well if read with a pause

this play seems, like Shakespeare in after tribunes.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

59

sc. I.]

My tears are now prevailing orators.

Luc, O noble father, you lament in vain :

The tribunes hear you not, no man is by ;

And you recount your sorrows to a stone.

Tit, Ah! Lucius, for thy brothers let me pleaH. 30

Grave tribunes, once more I entreat of you, —

Luc, My gracious lord, no tribune hears you speak.

Tit, Why, *tis no matter, man : if they did hear,

They would not mark me, or if they did mark.

They would not pity me, yet plead I must, 35

And bootless unto them.

Therefore I tell my sorrows to the stones.

Who, though they cannot answer my distress.

Yet in some sort they are better than the tribunes.
For that they will not intercept my tale. 40

When I do weep, they humbly at my feet
Receive my tears, and seem to weep with me ;

And were they but attired in grave weeds,

Rome could afford no tribune like to these.

26. prevailing orators^ etc.'\ This have left the stage by this time, leaving
extraordinary tirade of Titus’ is Titus alone with Lucius,
apparently meant to show that his 33. Why^ Uts no matter^ etc.'\ This
mind is giving way under his afflictions, seems to me distinctly Shakespearian,
and, if so, it may well be Shakespeare’s if not of his best. There is the char-
first essay in a field in which he be- acteristic irony of addressing the stones
came a supreme master, the depiction rather than the tribunes. His laying
of madness, or of the debatable land the whole blame on the tribunes, the
between temporary distraction and real very men who had wished to give him
insanity. See Introduction, p. xxxv. supreme power, shows Shakespeare’s
Note also the characteristically Shake- keen sense both of the strong irony of
spearian moral irony of making Titus, Fate and the fickleness of popular favour,
who not long ago killed one of his thus reminding us strongly of both
own sons and refused Tamora’s plea Julius Csesar and Coriolanus and of
for Alarbus, have to plead in vain for Shakespeare’s own aristocratic leanings,
the lives of two others. 36. And bootless^ etc.] So Q i, which

28. TAe tribunes, etc.] There seems seems preferable to the F i reading,
an omission or error in the stage- which makes the break in the previous
directions, as it is evident the tribunes line.

60

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actiii.

A stone is soft as wax, tribunes more hard than
stones; 45

A stone is silent, and offendeth not.

And tribunes with their tongues doom men to death.

[Rises,

But wherefore stand’st thou with thy weapon drawn ?
Luc, To rescue my two brothers from their death ;

For which attempt the judges have pronounc'd 50
My everlasting doom of banishment.

Tit, O happy man ! they have befriended thee.

Why, foolish Lucius, dost thou not perceive
That Rome is but a wilderness of tigers ?

Tigers must prey ; and Rome affords no prey 5 5
But me and mine : how happy art thou then.

From these devourers to be banished !

But who comes with our brother Marcus here ?

Enter MARCUS and Lavinia.

Marc, Titus, prepare thy aged eyes to weep ;

Or, if not so, thy noble heart to break : 60

I bring consuming sorrow to thine age.

Tit, Will it consume me? let me see it then.

Marc, This was thy daughter.

45. A stone ^ etc."] Printed as one line 94, 97; Henry V ii. i. 20, 44,
in Q I, as two in F l. It is a six-foot etc.

line, forming a perfect Alexandrine, or 54. wilderness of tigers^^tQ Merchant
may be called a trimeter couplet, a of Venice y iii. i. 128, “a wilderness of
metre used in dialogue by the Eliza- monkeys."

bethans, but mostly in comedy, as in 63. This was thy daughter"] These four
The Comedy of Errors and Lovers words are of electric force. The famous
Labours Lost. The Alexandrine “Troja fuit” is hardly more tersely
occurs not unfrequently in Shakespeare’s significant. And Titus’ reply, when we
blank verse, whether intentionally or consider that he had been very wroth
accidentally is difficult to say. See with her for eloping with Bassianus, is
Miasummer- Nights Dream, III. i. extremely touching — “so shew.”

TITUS ANDRONICUS

61

sc. I.]

Tit Why, Marcus, so she is.

Luc, Ay me ! this object kills me.

Tit Faint-hearted boy, arise, and look upon her. 65

Speak, my Lavinia, what accursed hand
Hath made thee handless in thy father’s sight ?

What fool hath added water to the sea,

Or brought a faggot to bright-burning Troy?

My grief was at the height before thou cam’st, 70
And now, like Nilus, it disdaineth bounds.

Give me a sword, 1 11 chop off my hands too ;

For they have fought for Rome, and all in vain ;

And they have nurs’d this woe, in feeding life ;

In bootless prayer have they been held up, 75

And they have serv’d me to effectless use :

Now all the service I require of them
Is that the one will help to cut the other.

Tis well, Lavinia, that thou hast no hands,

For hands, to do Rome service, are but vain. 80

Luc, Speak, gentle sister, who hath martyr’d thee ?

Marc, O ! that delightful engine of her thoughts.

That blabb’d them with such pleasing eloquence,

Is torn from forth that pretty hollow cage,

65. Faint-hearted boy^ etc.'] There is
something very grand in Titus’ rallying
his own indomitable spirit at this, the
very culmination of his misfortunes.

66. Speaks my Lavinia] N either F i
nor Q I have “my,” which is given in
F2.

66. accursed hand, etc.] The constant
play on this word is tedious to modern
readers, but was much in vogue at the
time this play was written, and, if
Shakespeare himself had a weakness,
it was just for that sort of thing.

72. Give me a sword, etc,] Steevens

objects that Titus could not chop off
both his own hands. This is surely
hypercriticism applied to a man speak-
ing in a state bordering on distraction.

76. effectless] ineffectual. Also
Pericles, v. i. 23.

82. O ! that, etc, ] These are beautiful
lines, and are an example of Shake-
speare’s fondness for the word “ sweet.”

82. engine] means of expression.
We have the same expression in Venus,
367. Engine, from Latin ingenium, was
used in Shakespeare’s time for any con*
trivance, device, or means of execution.

62

TITUS ANDRONICU S [act m.

Where, like a sweet melodious bird, it sung 85

Sweet varied notes, enchanting every ear.

Luc. O ! say thou for her, who hath done this deed ?

Marc. O ! thus I found her, straying in the park,

, Seeking to hide herself, as doth the deer
That hath receiv’d some unrecuring wound. 90

Tit. It was my dear ; and he that wounded her

Hath hurt me more than had he kill’d me dead :

For now I stand as one upon a rock
Environ’d with a wilderness of sea,

Who marks the waxing tide grow wave by wave, 95
Expecting ever when some envious surge
Will in his brinish bowels swallow him.

This way to death my wretched sons are gone ;

Here stands my other son, a banish’d man.

And here my brother, weeping at my woes : 100

But that which gives my soul the greatest spurn,

Is dear Lavinia, dearer than my soul.

Had I but seen thy picture in this plight

It would have madded me : what shall I do

Now I behold thy lively body so? 105

Thou hast no hands to wipe away thy tears.

Nor tongue to tell me who hath martyr’d thee:

Thy husband he is dead, and for his death

90. tinrecuring\ incurable. Appar-
ently only here. But recure = heal,
several times in Shakespeare, Venus,
465 ; Sonnet, xlv, 9 ; Richard III,
III. vii. 130.

92. than had\ than if he had.

92. kilCd me dead} The original
meaning of kill, the northern form of
quell (A.-S. cwellan), like the Ger-
man, schlagen, slay, meant to smite
or subdue, not necessarily to kill out-

right : so Irish phrase, “ to kill dead ”
(Craig).

96. envious} malignant, as Love s
Labour’s Lost, i. i. 100, “envious
sneaping frost.”

97. brinish} briny. The image is
fine, and recalls Hamlet’s “sea of
troubles.”

105. lively} living.

108. Thy husband he} Common
redundant nominative. See Abbott,

sc. I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 63

Thy brothers are condemn’d, and dead by this.

Look ! Marcus ; ah ! son Lucius, look on her : no

When I did name her brothers, then fresh tears
Stood on her cheeks, as doth the honey-dew
Upon a gather’d lily almost wither’d.

Marc, Perchance she weeps because they kill’d her
husband ;

Perchance because she knows them innocent. 1 1 5
Tit, If they did kill thy husband, then be joyful.

Because the law hath ta’en revenge on them.

No, no, they would not do so foul a deed ;

Witness the sorrow that their sister makes.

Gentle Lavinia, let me kiss thy lips; 120

Or make some sign how I may do thee ease.

Shall thy good uncle, and thy brother Lucius,

And thou, and I, sit round about some fountain,
Looking all downwards, to behold our cheeks
How they are stain’d, as meadows yet not dry, 125
With miry slime left on them by a flood ?

And in the fountain shall we gaze so long
Till the fresh taste be taken from that clearness.

And made a brine-pit with our bitter tears ?

Or shall we cut away our hands, like thine? 130
Or shall we bite our tongues, and in dumb shows
Pass the remainder of our hateful days ?

What shall we do ? let us, that have our tongues,

par. 243. As “For God he knows,” signs of great distress, and probably
Richard III. i. iii. 212. tries to show that the suspicion is

1 13. Upon a gathered lily\ A fine false,
and quite Shakespearian image. 125. meadows yet not dry ^ etc.] As

1 19. JVitness the sorrow^ etc.] Here Mr. Churton Collins {St-udies in Shake-
poor Lavinia, learning for the first speare^ p. 116) points out, this is an
time that her brothers were suspected exact description of a Warwickshire
of slaying her husband, doubtless shows meadow after a flood.

64

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actiii.

Plot some device of further misery,

To make us wonder'd at in time to come. 135

Luc, Sweet father, cease your tears ; for at your grief
See how my wretched sister sobs and weeps.

Marc, Patience, dear niece. Good Titus, dry thine eyes.

Tit, Ah ! Marcus, Marcus ; brother, well I wot

Thy napkin cannot drink a tear of mine, 140

For thou, poor man, hast drown'd it with thine own,
Luc, Ah ! my Lavinia, I will wipe thy cheeks.

Tit, Mark, Marcus, mark ! I understand her signs :

Had she a tongue to speak, now would she say
That to her brother which I said to thee : 14S

His napkin, with his true tears all bewet.

Can do no service on her sorrowful cheeks.

O ! what a sympathy of woe is this ;

As far from help as limbo is from bliss.

Enter Aaron.

Aar, Titus Andronicus, my lord the emperor 150

Sends thee this word : that, if thou love thy sons.

Let Marcus, Lucius, or thyself, old Titus,

Or any one of you, chop off your hand.

And send it to the king : he for the same

Will send thee hither both thy sons alive ; 155

And that shall be the ransom for their fault.

149. limbo] literally an edge or rim, of Errors^ iv. ii. 32, where it is used,
a place of unrest for departed souls, as here = hell.

neither heaven nor hell. Limbus 150. Titus Andronicus^ etc,] Here is

Patrum was the region where the souls another clumsy ‘ ‘ improbable possi-

of the good who lived before the pro- bility,” that Titus, Marcus, and Lucius

mulgation of the gospel were confined, should be so ridiculously credulous of
Some think the souls of unbaptized such a crude villain as Aaron. But the
infants also wander in this windy and original fable is mainly responsible for
uncertain region — Limbo Infantum, this.

See Paradise Lost, iii. 496 ; Comedy

sc. I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 65

TiU O gracious emperor ! O gentle Aaron !

Did ever raven sing so like a lark,

That gives sweet tidings of the sun’s uprise ?

With all my heart I ’ll send the emperor my hand. i6o
Good Aaron, wilt thou help to chop it off?

Luc, Stay, father ! for that noble hand of thine,

That hath thrown down so many enemies.

Shall not be sent ; my hand will serve the turn :

My youth can better spare my blood than you ; 165

And therefore mine shall save my brothers’ lives.
Marc, Which of your hands hath not defended Rome,

And rear’d aloft the bloody battle-axe.

Writing destruction on the enemy’s castle?

O ! none of both but are of high desert : 170

My hand hath been but idle ; let it serve
To ransom my two nephews from their death ;

Then have I kept it to a worthy end.

Aar, Nay, come, agree whose hand shall go along,

For fear they die before their pardon come. 175

Marc, My hand shall go.

Luc, By heaven, it shall not go !

1 59. sun's uprise\ Here “ uprise,” but
in Antony ^ iv. xii. i8, uprise. See
also Shelley’s lines written among the
Euganean Hills, line 73, “The sun’s
uprise majestical.”

160. With all my hearty etc.]
Another six-foot line or Alexandrine.
See above.

169. castle] A great deal of learned
ink has been spilt over this passage.
Nares quotes this word in the same
sense from Troilus atid Cressiday v. ii.
187, and from Holinshed, ii. p. 815.
My cousin, W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A.,
has kindly examined the Holinshed
passage and its context, and has come

5

to the conclusion that castle does not
mean helmet there at all, “but one of
the painted canvas structures that
figure so largely in mediaeval pageantry. ”
My own opinion is that the expression
is purely metaphoricaly as the word
“writing” shows. The idea is taken
from the “writing on the wall” in the
Bible, so that “writing destruction” is
a metaphorical way of saying he
brought certain destruction on their
castles. The Troilus passage is not to
be taken literally either, and seems to
mean, as Mr. Paley Baildon suggests,
merely something “stronger than an
ordinary helmet.

66

TITUS ANDRONICUS [act in.

Tit Sirs, strive no more : such wither’d herbs as these
Are meet for plucking up, and therefore mine.

Luc. Sweet father, if I shall be thought thy son.

Let me redeem my brothers both from death. 1 8o
Marc. And for our father’s sake, and mother’s care
Now let me show a brother’s love to thee.

Tit. Agree between you ; I will spare my hand.

Luc. Then I ’ll go fetch an axe.

Marc. But I will use the axe. 185

\Exeunt Lucius and Marcus.
Tit. Come hither, Aaron ; I ’ll deceive them both :

Lend me thy hand, and I will give thee mine.

Aar. \^Aside?[ If that be call’d deceit, I will be honest,

And never, whilst I live, deceive men so :

But I ’ll deceive you in another sort, 1 90

And that you ’ll say ere half an hour pass.

{Cuts off Titus's hand.

Re-enter LUCIUS and MARCUS.

Tit. Now stay your strife ; what shall be is dispatch’d.
Good Aaron, give his majesty my hand :

Tell him it was a hand that warded him

From thousand dangers; bid him bury it; 195

More hath it merited ; that let it have.

As for my sons, say I account of them

184, 185. Then Pll etc."] This
and the following are in F i and Q i
as broken lines.

185. will use the axe"] Steevens says
this must be “will use it.” I doubt if
these two excited exclamations are
intended to form one perfect line.
They seem rather meant as a kind of
rude couplet.

192. Nenv stay, etc.'] The blythe way
in which these mutilations are carried
out and endured seems to me to point
to an Oriental origin of the story, for
the stoicism of fanatics and others in
the East is a thing almost impossible
to Europeans.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

67

sc, I.]

As jewels purchas’d at an easy price ;

And yet dear too, because I bought mine own.

Aar, I go, Andronicus ; and for thy hand 200

Look by and by to have thy sons with thee.

\Aside^ Their heads, I mean. O ! how this villany
Doth fat me with the very thoughts of it.

Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace,

Aaron will have his soul black like hi:^ face. 205

{Exit,

Tit. O ! here I lift this one hand up to heaven,

And bow this feeble ruin to the earth :

If any power pities wretched tears,

To that I call. {To Lavinia.l What! wilt thou kneel
with me?

Do then, dear heart ; for heaven shall hear our
prayers, 2 1 o

Or with our sighs we ’ll breathe the welkin dim,

And stain the sun with fog, as sometime clouds
When they do hug him in their melting bosoms.

Marc. O ! brother, speak with possibility,

203. /fl/] fatten, nourish, delight, as of Fame/m. “ A welkin eye, ”

Troilus and Cresszda, II. ii. 48 ; Mid- Winter's Tale^ i. ii. 136, seems to
summer- Nigh fs Dream^ ii. i. 97. mean clear and blue, or innocent like

205. black like his face^ etc."] The the heaven,
association between darkness of com- 212. as sometime clouds, etc.'] We
plexion and wickedness is obvious and must supply *‘do’' after clouds, but, as
natural, however it may be borne out before ofeerved, it was part of the
m fact. Shakespeare in his Sonnets Elizabethan plan of attaining force of
returns repeatedly to this idea. He expression to omit words easily
evidently held the love between supplied by the reader,
members of the white and black races 213. When they do hug, etc.] Not
as being unnatural, as instanced in this quite so elegantly expressed as modern
play and in Othello, III. iii. 387. See taste would desiderate, but extremely
Introduction, p. xlv, etc. accurate as descriptive of clouds melting

21 1, welkin] sky, literally the region in sunlight. Such imagery strongly recalls
of clouds, and generally referring to an Shakespeare’s such as 18 and 33.

overcast sky ; whereas sky, by Chaucer 214. with possibility] F i has the
at least, was used for clear sky, House plural “ possibilities,” but the reading of

68

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actih.

And do not break into these deep extremes. 2 1 S

Tit. Is not my sorrow deep, having no bottom ?

Then be my passions bottomless with them.

Marc, But yet let reason govern thy lament.

Tit, If there were reason for these miseries,

Then into limits could I bind my woes. 220

When heaven doth weep, doth not the earth over-
flow?

If the winds rage, doth not the sea wax mad.
Threatening the welkin with his big-swoln face ?

And wilt thou have a reason for this coil ?

I am the sea ; hark ! how her sighs do blow ; 225

She is the weeping welkin, I the earth :

Then must my sea be moved with her sighs ;

Then must my earth with her continual tears
Become a deluge, overflow’d and drown’d ;

For why my bowels cannot hide her woes, 230

But like a drunkard must I vomit them.

Then give me leave, for losers will have leave
To ease their stomachs with their bitter tongues.

the Q I, as given here, seems preferable. 225. blow] Both F i and Q i have
To “ speak with possibility is to speak ‘‘flow,” which may be right in the
of things within the range of possibility, sense of succeeding each other rapidly.
The plural has no sense that I can “ Blow ” is inelegant,
see. 230. For wh^ because. Frequent

217. with them] seems to mean as in Shakespeare in poems and early
“deep as my sorrows.” ks>Lucrece,ii 2 ^\ Pilgrim, 11%,

224. coil] complication, confusion, 140; Two Gentlemen, \\\.\, Cow-

something in which we are deeply per uses “For why?” = “for what
involved. Hamlet, iii. i. 67, “mortal reeLSon,” sls John Gilpn, 151, etc. The
coil” = the complications and tioubles unpleasant image here does seem a
of this present life. wanton offence, and moreover is abso-

225. / am the sea, etc.] The un- lutely superfluous. One would have
doubted overelaboration of this double expected that, even if merely editing
image must seem forced and artificial the play, Shakespeare would have cut
to modem taste. But it is a very it out. That it should remain there,
common fault with the Elizabethans even after the final revision, is strong
and even with Shakespeare himself. evidence of the coarse taste of the time.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

69

sc. I.]

Enter a Messenger ^ with two heads and a hand.

Mess, Worthy Andronicus, ill art thou repaid

For that good hand thou sent'st the emperor. 235
Here are the heads of thy two noble sons,

And here ’s thy hand, in scorn to thee sent back :

Thy griefs their sports, thy resolution mock’d ;

That woe is me to think upon thy woes,

More than remembrance of my father’s death. 240

\Exit,

Marc, Now let hot -<Ftna cool in Sicily,

And be my heart an ever-burning hell !

These miseries are more than may be borne.

To weep with them that weep doth ease some deal,
But sorrow flouted at is double death. 245

Luc, Ah ! that this sight should make so deep a wound.
And yet detested life not shrink thereat ;

That ever death should let life bear his name.

Where life hath no more interest but to breathe.

\Lavinia kisses Titus.
Marc, Alas ! poor heart ; that kiss is comfortless 250
As frozen water to a starved snake.

Tit, When will this fearful slumber have an end ?

Ma 7 x. Now, farewell, flattery : die, Andronicus ;

Thou dost not slumber : see thy two sons’ heads.

244. To weep, etc, ] shows the author’s
familiarity with the Bible, and, accord-
ing to some, would point to Shake-
speare’s authorship.

244. some deat\ in part, a little.
‘‘Deal,” A.-S. dal, means a pait, and
is cognate to German Theil, It is
used in the sense of a lot in Shake-
speare, as now, “The fellow has a

deal of that too much ”=“ more than
his own share,” AlTs Well, iii. ii. 92.
Chaucer uses “never a deel ” = “ not a
bit,” Skeat, i. 1007.

251. As frozen water, etc,'\ a terse
and powerful image, and one that would
only occur to a close observer of nature.
Snakes were of course much more
common in England then than now.

70

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actiii.

Thy war-like hand, thy mangled daughter here ; 255

Thy other banish’d son, with this dear sight
Struck pale and bloodless ; and thy brother, I,

Even like a stony image, cold and numb.

Ah ! now no more will I control thy griefs.

Rend off thy silver hair, thy other hand 260

Gnawing with thy teeth ; and be this dismal sight
The closing up of our most wretched eyes 1
Now is cT time to storm ; why art thou still ?

Tit Ha, ha, hr !

Marc, Why dost thou laugh ? it fits not with this hour. 265
Tit Why, I have not another tear to shed :

Besides, this sorrow is an enemy.

And would usurp upon my watery eyes.

And make them blind with tributary tears :

Then which way shall I find Revenge’s cave? 270
For these two heads do seem to speak to me,

And threat me I shall never come to bliss
Till all these mischiefs be return’d again
Even in their throats that have committed them.

Come, let me see what task I have to do. 275

You heavy people, circle me about.

That I may turn me to each one of you.

And swear unto my soul to right your wrongs.

259. control iky ^iefs\ urge you to fiercest lust of revenge, and he seems
restrain. F i and Q i have “ my’' here, at once to conceive the whole terrible
Theobald suggests this gloss, which is scheme of vengeance which the rest of
perhaps unnecessary. the play is occupied in displaying. He

264. Ha^ ha, ha /] This terrible shakes off his despair, and with it the
laughter of Titus is startlingly dramatic, feebleness of age. His old instinct of
and a sudden change of mood and a command reasserts itself, and he at once
new departure (almost what Aristotle takes the lead and despatches Lucius
would call a “discovery”) in the to bring a Gothic army to thei
action. Almost simultaneously Titus* rescue,
bitter sorrow is transformed into the 276. heavy'\ sad.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

71

sc. I.]

The vow is made. Come, brother, take a head ;

And in this hand the other will I bear. 280

Lavinia, thou shalt be employed in these things :

Bear thou my hand, sweet wench, between thy teeth.
As for thee, boy, go get thee from my sight ;

Thou art an exile, and thou must not stay :

Hie to the Goths, and raise an army there; 285

And if you love me, as I think you do.

Let ’s kiss and part, for we have much to do.

[Exeunt Titus, Marcus, and Lavinia,
Luc, Farewell, Andronicus, my noble father ;

The woefull’st man that ever liv’d in Rome.

Farewell, proud Rome; till Lucius come again, 290
He loves his pledges dearer than his life.

Farewell, Lavinia, my noble sister ;

O ! would thou wert as thou tofore hast been ;

But now nor Lucius nor Lavinia lives

But in oblivion and hateful griefs. 295

If Lucius live, he will requite your wrongs,

And make proud Saturnine and his empress
Beg at the gates like Tarquin and his queen.

Now will I to the Goths, and raise a power.

To be reveng’d on Rome and Saturnine. [Exit, 300

281. Lavinia^ thou\ This line, which
has troubled commentators, is an Alex-
andrine. See above.

282. wencK\ girl, has here none of
the derogatory sense of the modern
usage. In Shakespeare the word
signifies familiarity, and may be either
tender or contemptuous according to
the context. Its original meaning from
A.-S. wincel—di child, probably from
“wenian” = “to wean.’* [Scotch
“ wean a child.”]

291. He loves\ F i and Q i have
“loves.” Rowe glosses “leaves,” un-
necessarily in my opinion ; the meaning
being that, as he loves the pledges he
leaves behind more than his own life,
he is sure to return.

292. Farewell^ Lavinia, etcL\ The
special affection and tenderness of
Lucius to his sister is carefully indicated
throughout.

293. tofore'\ before. Also Lovis
Labour's Lost, iii. i. 83.

72

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actiii.

SCENE 11 . — The Same. A Room in Tituses House.
A Banquet set out.

Enter Titus, Marcus, Lavinia, and young Lucius,
a Boy.

Tit. So, so; now sit; and look you eat no more
Than will preserve just so much strength in us
As will revenge these bitter woes of ours.

Marcus, unknit that sorrow-wreathen knot :

Thy niece and I, poor creatures; wanFour hands, 5

And cannot passionate our ten-fold grief
With folded arms. This poor right hand of mine
Is left to tyrannize upon my breast ;

And when my heart, all mad with misery,

Beats in this hollow prison of my flesh, lO

Then thus I thump it down.

\To Lavinia.] Thou map of woe, that thus dost talk
in signs.

When thy poor heart beats with outrageous beating
Thou canst not strike it thus to make it still.

Scene //.] The whole of this scene
occurs only in the Folio, which is here
followed. Hence it is either a later
addition or a portion of the original
omitted when acted. I am strongly
inclined to think the latter, for the
scene, though not uncharacteristic of
Shakespeare in some respects, is not in
his best and most mature manner ; it is
also quite unnecessary to the action, and
quite possibly all that to-do about kill-
ing a fly may have seemed somewhat
ridiculous to a miscellaneous audience.
But it is interesting psychologically
as a study on the borderland of sanity
and insanity. In this respect it is
admirable, but I think on the stage it
might strike many persons as absurd.

4. sorrow - wreathen knof] folded
arms, an attitude of “restrained” pas-
sion or profound melancholy. Is a
love-knot taken from the crossed arms
of melancholy lovers ?

6. passionate^ seems to mean to ex-
press the passion of our grief by assum-
ing that attitude ; the only example in
Shakespeare. Steevens quotes a similar
one from Chaucer ; and Spenser uses
the word. Faerie Queene, Bk. i. Canto
xii. 137.

g. And when] F i, who when.

12. map of woe] picture of misery.
Again in Coriolanus, ii. i. 68 ; Lucrece^
402, “ map of death ’’ ; Romeo^ v. i.
12, “map of honour,” etc.

sc. n.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

73

Wound it with sighing, girl, kill it with groans ; 1 5

Or get some little knife between thy teeth.

And just against thy heart make thou a hole ;

That all the tears that thy poor eyes let fall
May run into that sink, and soaking in.

Drown the lamenting fool in sea-salt tears. 20

Marc, Fie, brother, fie ! teach her not thus to lay
Such violent hands upon her tender life.

Tit, How now! has sorrow made thee dote already?

Why, Marcus, no man should be mad but I.

What violent hands can she lay on her life ? 25

Ah ! wherefore dost thou urge the name of hands ;

To bid iEneas tell the tale twice o'er.

How Troy was burnt and he made miserable?

0 1 handle not the theme, to talk of hands.

Lest we remember still that we have none. 30

Fie, fie I how franticly I square my talk,

As if we should forget we had no hands,

If Marcus did not name the word of hands.

Come, let 's fall to ; and, gentle girl, eat this :

Here is no drink. Hark, Marcus, what she says ; 3 S

1 can interpret all her martyr'd signs :

She says she drinks no other drink but tears,

17. against] over against = near. 31. square] to adjust, regulate.

19. sin^] meaning any place where Measure for Measure^ v. i. 487, etc.

water runs away. The word had not 36. martyred signs] signs of martyr-
then quite so unpleasant an association dom, of suffering. Nowhere else in
as now. Shakespeare, but he used the past-

20. lamenting fool] Fool is here used participle in a peculiar way, as “un-
as elsewhere in Shakespeare in a tender valued = “ invaluable,” Richard III,
rather than a disparaging sense. I. iv. 27; “imagined ” = “ imaginable,”
Winter^ s Tale^ II. i. 118; generally Merchant of Venice^ ill, iv. $2.

poor fool f as Venus and Adonis, $ 7 ^, 37. no other drink hut tears] The
Though I cannot bring myself to think idea of drinking tears, which recurs
that Lear, v. iii. 304, “ And my poor often in Shakespeare as John, iv. i. 62.
fool is hanged,” refers to Cordelia. It comes originally from the Bible, as

74

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actih.

Brew’d with her sorrow, mash’d upon her cheeks.
Speechless complainer, I will learn thy thought ;

In thy dumb action will I be as perfect 40

As begging hermits in their holy prayers :

Thou shalt not sigh, nor hold thy stumps to heaven,
Nor wink, nor nod, nor kneel, nor make a sign.

But I of these will wrest an alphabet.

And by still practice learn to know thy meaning. 45
Boy, Good grandsire, leave these bitter deep laments :

Make my aunt merry with some pleasing tale.

Marc, Alas ! the tender boy, in passion mov’d.

Doth weep to see his grandsire’s heaviness.

Tit. Peace, tender sapling; thou art made of tears, 50
And tears will quickly melt thy life away.

{Marcus strikes^the disk with a knife.
What dost thou strike at, Marcus, with thy knife ?
Marc, At that that I have kill’d, my lord ; a fly.

Tit, Out on thee, murderer ! thou kill’st my heart ;

Mine eyes are cloy’d with view of tyranny : 5 $

A deed of death, done on the innocent.

Becomes not Titus’ brother. Get thee gone ;

I see thou art not for my company.

Marc, Alas ! my lord, I have but kill’d a fly.

Tit, But how if that fly had a father and mother ? 60

Psalm Ixxx. 5, ** plenteousness of tears 60. But how^ etc.] Commentators
to drink.” have pointed out that “ and mother ” is

^8. BrewWzvtt^ Aerf etc.] a, very clumsy superfluous. But is it not to criticise
and offensive conceit from the opera- the speech of a man distraught too
tions of brewing. MacdetA, ii. ni. 130. curiously? First comes the idea that
45. j/zV/] constant (Johnson), or better, the fly had parents to lament his loss,
silent, dumb (Schmidt). and Titus naturally thinks mainly of

50. maete of tears] Steevens quotes the father. A good actor would pause
Coriolanus^ v. vi. loi, “boy of tears.” after the question, and this would take
54. kiirst my heart] break’st my off from the slight inconsistency that
heart ; so Henry V. ii. i. 92. has been pointed out.

sc. II.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

75

How would he hang his slender gilded wings,

And buzz lamenting doings in the air !

Poor harmless fly,

That, with his pretty buzzing melody, 64

Came here to make us merry ! and thou hast kill’d him,
Marc. Pardon me, sir ; it was a black ill-favour’d fly,

Like to the empress’ Moor ; therefore I kill’d him.

Tit. 0 , 0 , 0 !

Then pardon me for reprehending thee.

For thou hast done a charitable deed. 70

Give me thy knife, I will insult on him ;

Flattering myself, as if it were the Moor
Come hither purposely to poison me.

There’s for thyself, and that’s for Tamora.

Ah ! sirrah : 7 5

Yet I think we are not brought so low,

But that between us we can kill a fly.

That comes in likeness of a coal-black Moor,

Marc. Alas I poor man ; grief has so wrought on him,

He takes false shadows for true substances. 80

Tit. Come, take away. Lavinia, go with me :

62. lamenting doings^ lamentable pathy with minute insect life is char-

tales, stories, sad events, just as the acteristic of Shakespeare as of Burns,
characters in this play cite parallel mis- Measure for Measure, ill. i. 79.
fortunes to their own. For use of 75. another fragmentary

present-participle, see Abbott, par. 372. line not falling into the metrical scheme
According to this, we may take “la- of the verse.

menting” = “lamented” = “lament- 78. coal-black'] occurs three times in
able.” Theobald’s forced suggestion of this play, and four times in other plays
“ dolings ” is superfluous. or poems attributed to Shakespeare,

63. Poor harmless fy, etc.] T]\QmtX.x& as Venus, 533; Richard 11 . V. i. 49,
here and for four or five lines on, is, I etc.

think, intentionally broken ; but, spoken 79. Alas t poor man] Marcus evi-
with the proper pauses, I do not think dently thinks Titus is really going mad,
it would sound incorrect. O, O, O ! but Titus at once, as we would say,
for instance, is meant to be so prolonged “pulls himself together,” and says,
as to stand for a line; cf. Tennyson’s apparently to the servants, “ Come, take
“Break, break, break.” This sym- away ” the dishes.

76

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

I ’ll to thy closet ; and go read with thee
Sad stories chanced in the times of old.

Come, boy, and go with me : thy sight is young,

And thou shalt read when mine begins to dazzle. 85

\Exeunt,

ACT IV

SCENE I. — Rome. Titus's Garden.

Enter Titus and MARCUS. Then enter young LUCIUS,
Lavinia running after him.

Boy. Help, grandsire, help ! my aunt Lavinia
Follows me every where, I know not why :

Good uncle Marcus, see how swift she comes :

Alas ! sweet aunt, I know not what you mean.

Marc. Stand by me, Lucius ; do not fear thine aunt. 5
Tit. She loves thee, boy, too well to do thee harm.

Boy. Ay, when my father was in Rome she did.

Marc. What means my niece Lavinia by these signs ?

Tit. Fear her not, Lucius : somewhat doth she mean.

See, Lucius, see how much she makes of thee; 10
Somewhither would she have thee go with her.

Ah ! boy ; Cornelia never with more care
Read to her sons than she hath read to thee
Sweet poetry and Tully’s Orator.

Marc. Canst thou not guess wherefore she plies thee thus ? i 5

83. Sad stories chanced^ sad stories a * rrr c

which chanced or happened. This ocene /.

recalls “sad stories of the deaths of 12. mother of the Gracchi,

kings/’ Richard II. in. ii. 156, prob- 14. Cicero de Oratore

ably thinking of Lydgate’s “Fall of (Steevens).

Princes.” 15. plies'] importunes, presses, As 'Vou

85. to become dazzled. Venust Like It, ni. v. 76; Much Ado, III. ii.

1064, etc. 279.

sc. I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 77

Boy, My lord, I know not, I, nor can I guess.

Unless some fit or frenzy do possess her;

For I have heard my grandsire say full oft.

Extremity of griefs would make men mad ;

And I have read that Hecuba of Troy 20

Ran mad through sorrow ; that made me to fear,
Although, my lord, I know my noble aunt
Loves me as dear as e'er my mother did.

And would not, but in fury, fright my youth ;

Which made me down to throw my books and fly, 25
Causeless, perhaps. But pardon me, sweet aunt ;

And, madam, if my uncle Marcus go,

I will most willingly attend your ladyship.

Marc, Lucius, I will.

[Lavinia turns over the books which
Lucius had let fall.

Tit, How now, Lavinia ! Marcus, what means this ? 30

Some book there is that she desires to see.

Which is it, girl, of these ? Open them, boy.

But thou art deeper read, and better skill'd ;

Come, and take choice of all my library.

And so beguile thy sorrow, till the heavens 3 5

Reveal the damn'd contriver of this deed.

Why lifts she up her arms in sequence thus ?

Marc, I think she means that there was more than one
Confederate in the fact : ay, more there was ;

20. Hecuba] This seems to imply a 24. fury] madness,

knowledge of the Phcenissce of Euri- 24. fright my youth] Youth used by

pides, either in the original or in a synecdoche for a young person ; very
Litin translation. From the passage common figure of speech with Shake-
n Hamlet^ il. ii. 523, etc., it seems speare and the other Elizabethans,
likely there was some crude popular 33. But thou art deefer, etc.] hscviniA

iramatisation of the story which Shake- is represented as well educated, as many
speare was thus holding up to ridicule, ladies in Shakespeare’s time were.

78

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Or else to heaven she heaves them for revenge, 40
Tit Lucius, what book is that she tosseth so ?

Boy, Grandsire, ’tis Ovid’s Metamorphoses ;

My mother gave it me.

Marc, For love of her that ’s gone,

Perhaps, she cull’d it from among the rest.

Tit, Soft! see how busily she turns the leaves! 45

What would she find ? Lavinia, shall I read ?

This is the tragic tale of Philomel,

And treats of Tereus’ treason and his rape ;

And rape, I fear, was root of thine annoy.

Marc, See, brother, see ! note how she quotes the leaves. 50
Tit, Lavinia, wert thou thus surpris’d, sweet girl.

Ravish’d and wrong’d, as Philomela was.

Forc’d in the ruthless, vast, and gloomy woods ?

See, see !

Ay, such a place there is, where we did hunt, S $
O ! had we never, never hunted there.

41. tosseth so] Poor Lavinia in trying
to use the volume with her handless
arms would doubtless manage it but
awkwardly. But Lyly in Euphues
(Arber, p. 99) and others used the word
in exactly the same sense of turning over
leaves.

47. Philomel] This highly tragic
classical story was obviously running
very much in the author’s mind during
the writing of this play, and influenced
his plot. Philomel or Philomela was
treated by her brother-in-law Tereus
much as Lavinia was by the sons of
Tamora, only that he did not cut off
hands but only her tongue, and then
shut her up in a tower. She worked
the story of her wrongs in a sampler
which she sent to her sister Progne,
Tereus’ wife. The two women worked
a terrible vengeance on the guilty
husband. Progne murdered her own

son Itylus and served him up as food
to her husband, and Philomela by
throwing the boy’s head on a table
proved the horrible fact. Tereus was
changed into a hoopoe, Progne into a
swallow, and Philomela into a nightin-
gale. So that if Shakespeare has in-
dulged in unnecessary horrors he has at
least a close precedent in Greek myth-
ology. See also Cymbeline, ll. ii. 46.
It is hardly necessary to point out
the intricate and intimate connections
here shown between 7 'itus Andromcus^
Lturece^ and Cymbeline,

49. annoy] pain, suffering. Venus,
497; Lucrece, 1109, etc. etc.

50. quote] to note, mark, or dis-
tinguish, Nares, who cites Romeo and
Juliet, I. iv. 31, etc. ; also from Ben
Jonson, Fox, iv. i., and White Devil,
vi. 306; Hamlet, ii. i. 112.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

79

sc. I.]

Pattern'd by that the poet here describes,

By nature made for murders and for rapes.

Marc, O ! why should nature build so foul a den,

Unless the gods delight in tragedies ? 6o

Tit, Give signs, sweet girl, for here are none but
friends.

What Roman lord it was durst do the deed :

Or slunk not Saturnine, as Tarquin erst,

That left the camp to sin in Lucrece' bed ?

Marc, Sit down, sweet niece: brother, sit down by me. 65
Apollo, Pallas, Jove, or Mercury,

Inspire me, that I may this treason find !

My lord, look here ; look here, Lavinia :

This sandy plot is plain ; guide, if thou canst.

This after me.

\He writes his name with his staffs and guides
it with feet and mouth,
I have writ my name 70

Without the help of any hand at all.

Curs'd be that heart that forc’d us to this shift !

Write thou, good niece, and here display at last
What God will have discover'd for revenge.

Heaven guide thy pen to print thy sorrows plain, 75
That we may know the traitors and the truth !

[She takes the staff in her mouthy and guides
it with her stumps^ and writes,

57. after the pattern of, 65. Sit downy etc.'\ Marcus’s char-

made after the model of. Measure for acter is well distinguished from that of
Measure y ii. i. 30, etc. his brother, and his strong and tender

63. slunk\ went off stealthily. Cf. affection for his niece is emphasised.

LucrecOy 736. Hence it is appropriate that he should

64. Lucrecd 3 ed] This story seems to be the one to help her the most,
run in the author’s mind a good deal.

80

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Tit O ! do ye read, my lord, what she hath writ ?

Stuprum, Chiron. Demetrius.

Marc. What, what ! the lustful sons of Tamora

Performers of this heinous, bloody deed ? 8o

Tit. Magni dominator poli^

Tam lentus audis scelera ? tarn lentus vides ?

Marc. O ! calm thee, gentle lord ; although I know
There is enough written upon this earth
To stir a mutiny in the mildest thoughts 85

And arm the minds of infants to exclaims.

My lord, kneel down with me ; Lavinia, kneel ;

And kneel, sweet boy, the Roman Hector's hope ;

And swear with me, as with the woeful fere

And father of that chaste dishonour'd dame, 90

Lord Junius Brutus sware for Lucrece' rape,

That we will prosecute by good advice
Mortal revenge upon these traitorous Goths,

And see their blood, or die with this reproach.

Tit 'Tis sure enough, an you knew how ; 9 5

But if you hunt these bear- whelps, then beware :

The dam will wake, an if she wind you once :

She 's with the lion deeply still in league,

81. Magni dominator, etc.] is the ex- led some commentators to conjecture
clamation of Hippolytus, when Phaedra “peer” for “fere,” as in Pericles^ Pro-
discovers the secret of her incestuous logue, 21. “Fere” thus occurs only
passion in Seneca’s tragedy, line 671. twice in Shakespeare. Mr. Craig says
85. To stir a mutiny ^ etc."] This line it is common in Elizabethan literature,
rings very Shakespearian, as III. as in Golding’s Ovid (a favourite work

iv. 83, “ If thou canst mutine in a of Shakespeare’s), Bk. i. p. 10,
matron’s bones.” 95. *Tts sure enougK] This line is a

89. Anglo-Saxon, com- foot short. Perhaps it should run

panion, husband. “ Feir ’’ has still this ‘ ‘ Marcus, ” etc.

meaning in Scotch, as in the famous 97. wind^ scent, get on the scent of ;
lines of Bums, “ and here 's a han’, my not elsewhere in Shakespeare in this
trusty feir” (“Auld Lang Syne”), sense.

Ignorance of the meaning of the word 98. /ion] of course means Saturninus.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

81

sc. I.]

And lulls him whilst she playeth on her back,

And when he sleeps will she do what she list. lOO
You Ve a young huntsman, Marcus, let alone ;

And, come, I will go get a leaf of brass.

And with a gad of steel will write these words.

And lay it by : the angry northern wind

Will blow these sands like Sibyl's leaves abroad, 105

And where 's your lesson then ? Boy, what say you ?

I say, my lord, that if I were a man,

Their mother's bedchamber should not be safe
For these bad bondmen to the yoke of Rome.

Marc, Ay, that's my boy ! thy father hath full oft 1 10
For his ungrateful country done the like.

Boy, And, uncle, so will I an if I live.

Tit, Come, go with me into mine armoury :

Lucius, I 'll fit thee ; and withal my boy

Shall carry from me to the empress' sons 1 1 5

Presents that I intend to send them both :

Come, come ; thou 'It do thy message, wilt thou not ?
Boy, Ay, with my dagger in their bosoms, grandsire.

Tit, No, boy, not so : I '11 teach thee another course.

Lavinia, come. Marcus, look to my house ; 120

Lucius and I 'll go brave it at the court :

Ay, marry, will we, sir ; and we 'll be waited on.

{Exeunt Titus, Lavinia, and Boy,

103. Anglo-Saxon, a point 105. fVitt blow these, etc.] i,e, the
or sting, is the same word as the sand on which Lavinia has written,
southern form ‘‘goad.^’ We have the m. done the like] i.e. done a deed
northern form in gad-fly,” which of equal daring to that of pursuing
combination, along with others such as Chiron and Demetrius into their
gad-wand=a carter’s goad or whip mother’s chamber.

(Stratmann-Bradley, Af.jfi'. Diet.), may 122. and weUl be waited on] means
account for the shortening of the vowel, that Titus will not be neglected as he
JLear, i. ii. 26 ; Ballad of Tamlane had been at court, but will do some-
(Child), i. 122, “a redhot gad of iron.” thing to compel attention.

6

82

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Marc, O heavens ! can you hear a good man groan,

And not relent or not compassion him ?

Marcus, attend him in his ecstasy, 125

That hath more scars of sorrow in his heart
Than foemen’s marks upon his batter’d shield ;

But yet so just that he will not revenge.

Revenge, ye heavens, for old Andronicus ! {Exit,

SCENE II. — The Same, A Room in the Palace,

Enter from one side Aaron, Demetrius, and Chiron;
from the other side^ young LUCIUS and an Attendant^
with a bundle of weapons^ and verses writ upon them.

Chi, Demetrius, here ’s the son of Lucius ;

He hath some message to deliver us.

Aar, Ay, some mad message from his mad grandfather
Boy, My lords, with all the humbleness I may,

I greet your honours from Andronicus ; 5

\Asidel\ And pray the Roman gods confound you both,
Dem, Gramercy, lovely Lucius ; what 's the news ?

Boy, [Aside,] That you are both decipher’d, that ’s the news.
For villains mark’d with rape. [Aloud,] May it please

you.

My grandsire, well advis’d, hath sent by me 10

The goodliest weapons of his armoury.

To gratify your honourable youth,

129. Bevenj^e, ye heavens'] so glossed
by Johnson, but F i and Q i “the
heavens” is quite good, meaning, as
Steevens says, “Let the heavens
revenge,” the “let” being frequently
elided. See Abbott, par. 364, etc.
Marcus, as I say in the Introduction,
represents Shakespeare’s own “ gentle ”

spirit, and thus gives the true moral of
the play, that mortals should not take
vengeance into their own hands.

Scene //.

3. grandfather] accented grandfather.
7, Gramercy] See previous note.

12. your honourable youth] a figure

sc. II.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

83

The hope of Rome, for so he bade me say ;

And so I do, and with his gifts present

Your lordships, that, whenever you have need, i 5

You may be armed and appointed well.

And so I leave you both, [Aside] like bloody villain?.

[Exeunt Boy and Attendant,

Dent, What ’s here ? A scroll ; and written round about ?
Let ’s see :

Integer vitae ^ scelerisque purus, 20

Non eget Mauri jaculis^ nec arcu,

ChL O ! ’tis a verse in Horace ; I know it well :

I read it in the grammar long ago.

Aar, Ay, just a verse in Horace ; right, you have it.

[Aside,] Now, what a thing it is to be an ass ! 25

Here *s no sound jest ! the old man hath found their
guilt.

And sends them weapons wrapp'd about with
lines.

of speech in which the general or
abstract noun is used for the concrete
=your honourable youths. This is a
very favourite figure with Shakespeare.

20. Integer vitae, etc.] Horace, Oc/es,
Book I. 22, which I venture to render
thus :

“ Whoso is clear of crime and true
of heart

Needs not, O Fuscus, either Moor-
ish dart

Or bow ; or arrows poisoned with
strange art

To fill his quiver.”

Some commentators profess to find the
quotation unmeaning and inappropriate,
but it seems to me singularly apt both
in intimating their danger obscurely to
the guilty youths and from its felicitous
allusion to the Moor, Aaron, whose

poisoned darts had brought about the
tragedy.

23. / read it in the grammar'\ That
Chiron, a Goth, should read Horace in
a “ grammar, long ago,” seems unlikely,
but that Shakespeare recalled it from
the Latin grammar of his own school-
days is probable enough. The remain-
ing lines, as translated above, of the
famous stanza are :

Nec venenahs gravidd sagittis^
Fusee ^ pharetra'^

26, Here *s no sound jesf] Aaron with
his usual acuteness sees Titus* mean-
ing at once, and perceives that the jest
is no wholesome one for the receivers
of the paper ; but his innate selfishness
and love of treachery make him keep
the knowledge to himself, with fatal
results to all concerned.

84

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

That wound, beyond their feeling, to the quick ;

But were our witty empress well afoot,

She would applaud Andronicus’ conceit: 30

But let her rest in her unrest awhile.

[A/oud] And now, young lords, was 't not a happy
star

Led us to Rome, strangers, and more than so,
Captives, to be advanced to this height ?

It did me good before the palace gate 35

To brave the tribune in his brother's hearing.

Dent. But me more good, to see so great a lord
Basely insinuate and send us gifts.

Aar. Had he not reason. Lord Demetrius ?

Did you not use his daughter very friendly ? 40

Dent. I would we had a thousand Roman dames
At such a bay, by turn to serve our lust.

Chi. A charitable wish and full of love.

Aar. Here lacks but your mother for to say amen.

Chi. And that would she for twenty thousand more. 45
Dent. Come, let us go, and pray to all the gods
For our beloved mother in her pains.

Aar. \Aside?^ Pray to the devils ; the gods have given us
over. [Trumpets sound.

Dem. Why do the emperor's trumpets flourish thus ?

Chi. Belike, for joy the emperor hath a son. 50

Dem. Soft ! who comes here ?

29. afooi] about, commonly applied bay and in one’s power ; so Pilgrim^
to a woman recovering from child- 155.

bed. 48, Pray to the devils, ete.] Aaron

31. let her rest, etc.] See Pichard III. suspects what will now happen, and
IV. iv. 29 ; V. iii. 320. sees the result approaching.

38. insinuate] to flatter, to curry 49. flourish] sound in particular way.
favour ; so Richard II, iv. i. 165. A flourish differed from a sennet,

42. At such a bay] i.e, brought to exactly in what way is not known.

sc. n.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

85

Enter a Nurse^ with a blackamoor Child.

Nurse. Good morrow, lords. O ! tell me, did you see
Aaron the Moor?

Aar. Well, more or less, or ne’er a whit at all.

Here Aaron is ; and what with Aaron now ? 55

Nurse. O gentle Aaron ! we are all undone.

Now help, or woe betide thee evermore !

Aar. Why, what a caterwauling dost thou keep !

What dost thou wrap and fumble in thine arms ?
Nurse. O ! that which I would hide from heaven’s eye, 60
Our empress’ shame, and stately Rome’s disgrace.

She is deliver’d, lords, she is deliver’d.

Aar. To whom ?

Nurse. I mean she ’s brought a-bed.

Aar. Well, God give her good rest ! What hath he sent
her ?

Nurse. A devil.

Aar. Why, then she is the devil’s dam: 65

A joyful issue.

Nurse. A joyless, dismal, black, and sorrowful issue.

54. Welly more or lessj elc.] The
whole that follows to the end of the
scene is very fine, and well worthy the
creator of lago. The union of un-
matched effrontery and cruelty with
natural paternal feeling is one which
only Shakespeare could have carried
out so triumphantly. Very Shake-
spearian is the dwelling on the colour
black, as in the Sonnets and in Othello.
See Introduction, p. xlv.

59. fumblel fumble with.

65. deviVs dant] Dam was a universal
word for mother, used of animals, even
birds, as a hen, Macbeth y iv. iii. 218.
Mr. H. C. Hart has the following note
ii> the Arden Shakespeare to Othello,

IV. i. 150, “ Let the devil and his dam
haunt you ” : “ This expression belongs
to Shakespeare’s earlier plays. The
last (excepting Othello itself) in which
it occurs is in the Merry Wives (i. i.
151). It is derived from a mediaeval
legend (Wright, Domestic Manners,
p. 4), and seems to have become
obsolete about this time. The ex-
pression occurs in the York Mystery
Plays (ed. Toulmin Smith, p. 300),
‘ What the deuyll and his dam schall
I doo?’ {circa 1400). I find it in Roy,
G. Harvey, T. Heywood, and Greene,
but nowhere so commonly as in
Shakespeare.^’

86

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Here is the babe, as loathsome as a toad
Amongst the fairest breeders of our clime.

The empress sends it thee, thy stamp, thy seal, 70
And bids thee christen it with thy dagger’s point.

Aar, ’Zounds, ye whore! is black so base a hue?

Sweet blowse, you are a beauteous blossom, sure.

Dem. Villain, what hast thou done ?

Aar, That which thou canst not undo. 75

Chi, Thou hast undone our mother.

Aar, Villain, I have done thy mother.

Dem, And therein, hellish dog, thou hast undone.

Woe to her chance, and damn’d her loathed choice 1
Accurs’d the offspring of so foul a fiend I 80

Chi, It shall not live.

Aar, It shall not die.

Nurse, Aaron, it must ; the mother wills it so.

Aar, What! must it, nurse? then let no man but I

Do execution on my flesh and blood. 85

Dem, I ’ll broach the tadpole on my rapier’s point :

Nurse, give it me ; my sword shall soon dispatch it.
Aar, Sooner this sword shall plough thy bowels up.

\Takes the Child from the Nurse^ and draws.

69. breeders] A word used elsewhere
by Shakespeare of female animals, as
Venus, 282. Cf. also Hamlet, iii. i.123.

blowse] “a ruddy, fat-faced
wench,” Schmidt, who gives only this
passage, where it cannot have exactly
this meaning, as the child was a boy.
Probably used of any rosy, healthy
child. Another extraordinary instance of
Shakespeare’s encyclopaedic knowledge,
as negro children are not born black, but
red, like children of white parents. But
the word ‘ ‘ toad ” above suggests that the
black pigment showed itself in blotches

or patches, which is, I believe, the case
with children of mixed parentage.

74. what hast thou done] This word-
play on do and done at so serious a
juncture is ^uite Shakespearian, as
were Mercutio’s dying jests. The
metre here is obviously broken, and
not meant for perfect blank verse.

86. broach] The first meaning of
broach is to spit, hence to make a hole
in anything and let out its contents.
It has here, I think, the double mean-
ing of spitting the child and spilling its
blood.

sc. II ] TITUS ANDRONICUS

87

Stay, murderous villains ! will you kill your brother ?
Now, by the burning tapers of the sky, 90

That shone so brightly when this boy was got.

He dies upon my scimitar's sharp point
That touches this my first-born son and heir.

I tell you, younglings, not Enceladus,

With all his threatening band of Typhon's brood, 95
Nor great Alcides, nor the god of war,

Shall seize this prey out of his father's hands.

What, what, ye sanguine, shallow-hearted boys !

Ye white-lim’d walls ! ye alehouse painted signs !

Coal-black is better than another hue, 1 00

In that it scorns to bear another jmej

For all the water in the ocean

Can never turn the swan's black legs to white.

Although she lave them hourly in the flood.

Tell the empress from me, I am of age 105

To keep mine own, excuse it how she can.

Dem. Wilt thou betray thy noble mistress thus?

Aar, My mistress is my mistress; this myself;

The vigour and the picture of my youth :

91. when this boy^ etc,'\ See Glouces-
ter’s speech in Lear^ i. i. et seq.

94. Enceladus'] One of the Titans,
said to be imprisoned under JEtna, not
mentioned elsewhere in Shakespeare.

95. Typhon^s brood] The Titan sons
of Typheus or Typhon, who all waged
war against Zeus and the Olympian
gods. See Keats’ Hyperion,

96. Alcides] Hercules.

98. san^ine] ruddy. Here and in
the following lines Aaron scoffs at the
white and red complexions of the Goths.

99. white-lMd] white-washed. F 1
and Q l have “limb’d,” but Pope in-
geniously, and in all probability

correctly, read “lim’d.” Mr. Craig
thinks “it refers to the sign at the
top of the ale stake, as Chaucer
calls it.”

99. alehouse painted] After ridiculing
their white and red separately, he com-
bines them to a crudely painted ale-
house sign.

102. ocean] trisyllable.

106. excuse it^ etc.] With character-
istic callousness and treachery Aaron
is prepared to leave Tamora to her
fate. He admired her, especially her
wit, but had no affection for her. He
could only love what he regarded as a
second self, his child.

88 TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

This before all the world do I prefer ; no

This ipaugre all the world will I keep safe,

Or some of you shall smoke for it in Rome.

Dem, By this our mother is for ever shamed.

Chi, Rome will despise her for this foul escape.

Nurse, The emperor in his rage will doom her death. 1 1 5
Chi, I blush to think upon this ignomy.

Aar, Why, there ’s the privilege your beauty bears.

Fie, treacherous hue ! that will betray with blushing
The close enacts and counsels of the heart :

Here’s a young lad fram’d of another leer: 120

Look how the black slave smiles upon the father,

As who should say, Old lad, I am thine own.”

He is your brother, lords, sensibly fed
Of that self blood that first gave life to you ;

And from that womb where you imprison’d were 125
He is enfranchised and come to light :

Nay, he ’s your brother by the surer side.

Although my seal be stamped in his face.

Nurse, Aaron, what shall I say unto the empress ?

Dem, Advise thee, Aaron, what is to be done, 130

And we will all subscribe to thy advice :

Save thou the child, so we may all be safe.

1 12. snwke for if] suffer for it. In
eighteenth-century slang “to smoke,
any one” meant to tease or annoy
them. It seems to come from the idea
of punishing a horse till he sweats or
“ smokes,” as “to smoke your skin-
coat, IV. iii. 64.

1 1 4. tscape\ transgression. Modem
English, escapade. Ot hello ^ i. iii. 197.

116. ignomyl A contraction of
ignominy used by Shakespeare and other
Elizabethan writers. Peele has the ad-

jective “ ignomious,” Prologue io Sir
Clyomon.

120. leer'\ A,-S. hleor = cheek, hence
complexion. As You Like II, IV. i. 65;.

124. self blood\ same blood. A very
frequent use of self in Shakespeare.
Merchant of Venice^ I. i. 148 ; Lear^
I. i. 71.

125. And from that womb, etc.] See
very similar passage, Winter s Tale^ il.
ii. 59~6 i, confirming Shakespeare’s
authorship.

sc. II.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

89

Aar, Then sit we down, and let us all consult.

My son and I will have the wind of you :

Keep there ; now talk at pleasure of your safety. 135

\They sit

Dent, How many women saw this child of his ?

Aar, Why, so, brave lords ! when we join in league,

I am a lamb ; but if you brave the Moor,

The chafed boar, the mountain lioness.

The ocean swells not so as Aaron storms. 140

But say again, how many saw the child ?

Nurse, Cornelia the midwife, and myself.

And no one else but the delivered empress.

Aar, The empress, the midwife, and yourself:

Two may keep counsel when the third's away. 145
Go to the empress ; tell her this I said :

^Stabbing her,

‘‘ Weke, weke ! "

So cries a pig prepared to the spit.

Dem, What mean'st thou, Aaron ? wherefore didst thou this ?
Aar, O Lord, sir, 'tis a deed of policy : 1 50

Shall she live to betray this guilt of ours,

A long-tongu'd babbling gossip ? no, lords, no.

And now be it known to you my full intent.

Not far, one Muli lives, my countryman ;

134. have the wind of you] have the
advantage of position, so as not to be
surprised. He evidently keeps the
others at a distaijce.

145. Two may keep counsel] Also
Romeo and Juliet^ ll. iv. 209.

147. Weke, weke] In mockery of
the poor woman’s shrieks. In Scott’s
Discovery of Witchcraft^ Book xili.
chap. ii. 245 (Nicholson), we have
“weeking” used to express the

squeaking of a young pig when being
killed.

154. Muli lives] F i and Q i give
“Mulitius.” Steevens conjectures
“Muley lives.” Muley is a Moorish
name, as Muley Mahomet, King of
Fez and Morocco, had a son, Muley
Xaque, whom Muley Moluc, his cousin,
drove out of Morocco, so that he fled
to Spain, became a convert {yirca 1598),
was given a Spanish title, and di^ in

90

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

His wife but yesternight was brought to bed. 1 5 5
His child is like to her, fair as you are :

Go pack with him, and give the mother gold.

And tell them both the circumstance of all.

And how by this their child shall be advanc’d.

And be received for the emperor’s heir, 1 6o

And substituted in the place of mine,

To calm this tempest whirling in the court;

And let the emperor dandle him for his own.

Hark ye, lords ; you see I have given her physic,

[Pointing to the Nurse.
And you must needs bestow her funeral; 165

The fields are near, and you are gallant grooms.

This done, see that you take no longer days.

But send the midwife presently to me.

The midwife and the nurse well made away.

Then let the ladies ifittle what they please. 170

Chi. Aaron, I see thou wilt not trust the air
With secrets.

Dent. For this care of Tamora,

Herself and hers are highly bound to thee,

[Exeunt Demetrius and Chiron^ bearing off

the Nursds body.

Aar. Now to the Goths, as swift as swallow flies ;

There to dispose this treasure in mine arms, 175

the Flemish war. I take this from a disposed of her. All potent medicines
note, p. 137, of Professor Schroer's are also poisons, and so the word physic
Ueber Titus Andronicus^ and he may be used in the sense of poison or
again acknowledges his indebtedness to fatal dose.

Professor Baist of Freiburg (in Breisgau) 166. gallant grooms'] A sarcastic
University for this information. allusion to their treatment of Lavinia.

157. Gopa€kiet€,]com^\xt, Taming Groom, from A.-S. a youth, as

of the Shrew^ v. i. 121. in bridegroom, means here attendant, as

16^. given her physic] cured her, in the phrase “ groom of the chamber.”

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

91

And secretly to greet the empress* friends.

Come on, you thick-lipp*d slave, I *11 bear you hence ;
For it is you that puts us to our shifts ;

I *11 make you feed on berries and on roots,

And feed on curds and whey, and suck the goat, 1 8 o
And cabin in a cave, and bring you up
To be a warrior, and command a camp.

\Exity with the Child,

SCENE III. — The Same, A public Place,

Enter Titus, bearing arrows with letters on the ends of
them; with him MARCUS, young LUCIUS, PUBLIUS,
Sempronius, Caius, and other Gentlemeny with bows.

Tit, Come, Marcus, come ; kinsmen, this is the way.

Sir boy, now let me see your archery :

Look ye draw home enough, and *tis there straight.
Terras Astraea reliquit :

Be you remember’d, Marcus, she *s gone, she *s fled. 5
Sirs, take you to your tools. You, cousins, shall

177. thick-hppd slave] See Philaster
(Beaumont and Fletcher), iv. ii., “O
that I had been nourished,” etc., and
Locksley Hall.

178. puts us to our shifts] compels
us to flee and avoid notice. Shifts are
stratagems or dodges in order to escape
a danger. Joktiy iv. iii. 7.

180. Arid feed on curds] Hanmer
conjectures “feast” to save the
repetition of “feed.”

1 81. cabin in] live confined in.
Macbeth^ in. iv. 24.

Scene ///.

I. Come, Marcus] Here Titus seems,
or rather feigns, to have lapsed from his
strenuous mood into one between mad*

ness and senility. There is consider-
able resemblance between this scene
and one in The Spanish Tragedy, yet
not more than the close similarity of
subject might account for. But The
Spanish Tragedy, if we except the
later additions, is manifestly and con-
sistently inferior to Shakespeare’s work
generally, and even to Titus A ndronicus
itself.

4. Terras Astraea, etc.] Astrea was
the goddess of justice ; so this means
justice has left the earth.

5. remember'd] reminded, a common
use of the word in Shakespeare’s
Sonnets, cxx., cxxix., etc. etc. The
metre here is broken by the quotation,
and only resumed at line 6.

92

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Go sound the ocean, and cast your nets ;

Happily you may find her in the sea ;

Yet there ’s as little justice as at land.

No; Publius and Sempronius, you must do it; lo

*Tis you must dig with mattock and with spade,

And pierce the inmost centre of the earth :

Then, when you come to Pluto's region,

I pray you, deliver him this petition ;

Tell him, it is for justice and for aid, i 5

And that it comes from old Andronicus,

Shaken with sorrows in ungrateful Rome.

Ah ! Rome. Well, well ; I made thee miserable

What time I threw the people's suffrages

On him that thus doth tyrannize o'er me. 20

Go, get you gone ; and pray be careful all,

And leave you not a man-of-war unsearch'd :

This wicked emperor may have shipp'd her hence ;

And, kinsmen, then we may go pipe for justice.

Marc, O Publius ! is not this a heavy case, 2 5

To see thy noble uncle thus distract?

Pui, Therefore, my lord, it highly us concerns

By day and night to attend him carefully.

And feed his humour kindly as we may.

Till time beget some careful remedy. 30

Marc, Kinsmen, his sorrows are past remedy.

Join with the Goths, and with revengeful war

Take wreak on Rome for this ingratitude,

24. pipe for Justice'] whistle for it Matthew, 1880, Early English Text
vainly. Wintet^s Tale^ iv, iv. 715. Society.

This use of the phrase seems to be 30. beget some careful remedy] seems
founded originally on the passage in to mean that in course of time they will
Matthew xi. 17: “We have piped find a remedy, as a result of their care and
unto you, and ye have not danced.” attention. I see no reason to read
Wyclif has “ pipe with an ivy lefe,” ful^ as has been suggested by Schmidt.

sc. in.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

93

And vengeance on the traitor Saturnine.

Tit, Publius, how now! how now, my masters! 35

What ! have you met with her ?

Pub, No, my good lord ; but Pluto sends you word,

If you will have Revenge from hell, you shall :

Marry, for Justice, she is so employed.

He thinks, with Jove in heaven, or somewhere else, 40
So that perforce you must needs stay a time.

Tit, He doth me wrong to feed me with delays.

1 11 dive into the burning lake below.

And pull her out of Acheron by the heels.

Marcus, we are but shrubs, no cedars we; 45

No big-bon'd men fram’d of the Cyclops’ size ;

But metal, Marcus, steel to the very back,

Yet wrung with wrongs more than our backs can bear :
And sith there’s no justice in earth nor hell.

We will solicit heaven and move the gods SO

To send down Justice for to wreak our wrongs.

Come, to this gear. You ’re a good archer, Marcus.

\He gives them the arrows.
Ad Jovem^ that’s for you : here. Ad Apollinem :

Ad Mar tern ^ that’s for myself:

Here, boy, to Pallas : here, to Mercury : 5 5

To Saturn, Caius, not to Saturnine;

43. I^/ldtvezn^o tket eU.] Another in- Voyage^ v. 4 (Crawford). In Shake-
stance of the fine rant in which Shake- speare's time no distinction was made
speare and other Elizabethans indulged, between “metal*’ the literal and
We moderns are afraid of it ; but is that “ mettle,” now the met^horical word,
not because “We are but shrubs, no 48. Yet wrung, etc,'\ Qi, Hamlet, ill,
cedars we”? Titus here is obviously play- ii. 253.
ing the madman even before his friends. 5 1 . wreak\ revenge.

47. Bui metal, Marcus, steel, etc.] A 52. gear] aifair, business. Richard
noble line worthy of the author of III. i, iv. 158.

Henry V, Similar expressions occur 53. Ad Jovem, that^s for you] We
in Euphues, Arber, p. 106, lines 35-6 ; cannot help thinking of poor Ophelia
Beaumont and Fletcher, The Sea- distributing her flowers.

94

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

You were as good to shoot against the wind.

To it, boy ! Marcus, loose when I bid.

Of my word, I have written to effect ;

There ^s not a god left unsolicited. 6o

Marc, Kinsmen, shoot all your shafts into the court :

We will afflict the emperor in his pride.

Tit, Now, masters, draw. {They shoot,

O ! well said, Lucius.

Good boy, in Virgo’s lap : give it Pallas.

Marc, My lord, I aim a mile beyond the moon; 65

Your letter is with Jupiter by this.

Tit, Ha ! Publius, Publius, what hast thou done ?

See, see ! thou hast shot off one of Taurus’ horns.
Marc, This was the sport, my lord : when Publius shot.

The Bull, being gall’d, gave Aries such a knock 70
That down fell both the Ram’s horns in the court ;
And who should find them but the empress’ villain ?
She laugh’d, and told the Moor he should not choose
But give them to his master for a present.

Tit, Why, there it goes: God give his lordship joy! 75

Enter a Clown^ with a baskety and two pigeons in it.

News ! news from heaven ! Marcus, the post is come.

Sirrah, what tidings ? have you any letters ?

Shall I have justice? what says Jupiter?

59. Of my word] on my word. See 65. beyond the moon] See Corio-
Abbott, par. 175. /anus, v. i. 32. Marcus is of course

59. to effect] to purpose. humouring Titus, whom he thinks

63. well sat'd] equivalent to “ well mad.

done,” as often in Shakespeare as “ill 68. Taurus] zodiacal sign; so Aries
will never said (did) well,” Henry V, two lines further on ; the usual play on
III. vii. 153, etc. the significance of “ horns” ; see above.

64. Virgo] the constellation. The line scans well enough if we say

65. I aim] Rowe quite gratuitously “ thou ’st” for “ thou hast.”
conjectures “am.”

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

96

Clo, O ! the gibbet- maker. He says that he hath

taken them down again, for the man must not 8o
be hanged till the next week.

Tit But what says Jupiter, I ask thee?

Clo. Alas! sir, I know not Jupiter; I never drank
with him in all my life.

Tit. Why, villain, art not thou the carrier? 85

Clo. Ay, of my pigeons, sir ; nothing else.

Tit. Why, didst thou not come from heaven?

Clo. From heaven 1 alas 1 sir, I never came there.

God forbid I should be so bold to press to
heaven in my young days. Why, I am going 90

with my pigeons to the tribunal plebs, to take up
a matter of brawl betwixt my uncle and one of
the emperiafs men.

Marc. Why, sir, that is as fit as can be to serve for

your oration ; and let him deliver the pigeons to 95
the emperor from you.

Tit. Tell me, can you deliver an oration to the
emperor with a grace?

Clo. Nay, truly, sir, I could never say grace in all my

life. 100

Tit. Sirrah, come hither : make no more ^do,

But give your pigeons to the emperor :

By me thou shalt have justice at his hands.

Hold, hold ; meanwhile here ’s money for thy charges.

79. O / the gibbeUmaker\ This scene etc. The clown speaks prose, as
with the clown, though rather dragged many similar characters in Shakespeare
in, is meant, like Titus’ fooling with do.

the arrows, as a relief to the more 89. GedJ^erbidf ete.]This SitlesLStisex^
serious action. If not exactly very cellent fooling. See Introduction, p. liv.
amusing, it is very much on the lines of 9^* tribunal plehs\ a rustic’s blunder
Shakespeare’s treatment of the rustic for ** plebeian tribune.”
clown in Winter's Tale and Old Gobbo, 93. emperiaVs men] Emperor’s men.

96

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Give me pen and ink. 105

Sirrah, can you with a grace deliver a supplication ?

Clo. Ay, sir.

Tit, Then here is a supplication for you. And when
you come to him, at the first approach you must
kneel ; then kiss his foot ; then deliver up your 1 1 o
pigeons ; and<then look for your reward. I *11 be
at hand, sir ; see you do it bravely.

Clo, I warrant you, sir ; let me alone.

Tit. Sirrah, hast thou a knife? Come, let me see it.

Here, Marcus, fold it in the oration ; 1 1 5

For thou hast made it like an humble suppliant :

And when thou hast given it to the emperor,

Knock at my door, and tell me what he says.

Clo. God be with you, sir ; I will.

Tit. Come, Marcus, let us go. Publius, follow me. 120

[Exeunt.

SCENE IV. — Tke Same. Before the Palace.

Enter Saturninus, Tamora, Demetrius, Chiron, Lords,
and Others : SATURNINUS with the arrows in his hand
that Titus shot.

Sat. Why, lords, what wrongs are these ! Was ever seen
An emperor in Rome thus overborne.

Troubled, confronted thus ; and, for the extent
Of egal justice, us*d in such contempt?

My lords, you know, as do the mightful gods, 5

However these disturbers of our peace

Buzz in the people's ears, there nought hath pass’d,

3. extent] practice. 7.. Buzz] whisper. Henry VJIl. ii.

4. equal. Norman-French form, i. 148.

as ‘Megal" or ‘Heal** for “loyal,**

‘ ‘ regal “ royal. ”

sc.iv.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

97

But even with law, against the wilful sons

Of old Andronicus. And what an if

His sorrows have so overwhelm’d his wits? lO

Shall we be thus afflicted in his wreaks,

His fits, his frenzy, and his bitterness?

And now he writes to heaven for his redress :

See, here ’s to Jove, and this to Mercury ;

This to Apollo ; this to the god of war ; i 5

Sweet scrolls to fly about the streets of Rome !

What *s this but libelling against the senate.

And blazoning our injustice every where?

A goodly humour, is it not, my lords ?

As who would say, in Rome no justice were. 20

But, if I live, his feigned ecstasies
Shall be no shelter to these outrages ;

But he and his shall know that justice lives
In Saturninus’ health ; whom, if she sleep.

He’ll so awake, as she in fury shall 25

Cut off the proud’st conspirator that lives.

Tam, My gracious lord, my lovely Saturnine,

Lord of my life, commander of my thoughts.

Calm thee, and bear the faults of Titus’ age.

The effects of sorrow for his valiant sons, 30

Whose loss hath pierc’d him deep and scarr’d his heart ;
And rather comfort his distressed plight
Than prosecute the meanest or the best
For these contempts, \Aside^ Why, thus it shall
become

8. even with] in accord with.

II. wreaks] revenges.

18. blazoning] publishing,

2 1 . feigned ecstasies] Curiously enough

Saturninus, who was of a suspicious
and cowardly temperament, was the
only one who seems to have suspected
the genuineness of Titus’ madness.

98

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

High-witted Tamora to gloze with all : 35

But, Titus, I have touched thee to the quick.

Thy life-blood on ’t : if Aaron now be wise.

Then is all safe, the anchor ’s in the port.

Enter Clown.

How now, good fellow ! would’st thou speak with us ?
Clo. Yea, forsooth, an your mistership be emperial. 40
Tam. Empress I am, but yonder sits the emperor.

Clo. ’Tis he. God and Saint Stephen give you good
den. I have brought you a letter and a couple
of pigeons here. [Saturninus reads the letter.

Sat Go, take him away, and hang him presently. 45

Clo. How much money must I have ?

35. High-witted^ Tamora was ob- This scene, inferior as it is to most of
viously conceited about the wit or Shakespeare's comic reliefs in his other
cunning which also excited the admira- plays, is still strikingly Shakespearian,
tion of Aaron ; and it was hei over- and the clown here belongs to his great
confidence in it that made her the victim family of rustic clowns. See Introduc-
of Titus* mock-mad, but far subtler tion, p. liv.

strategy. Still I think that Shakespeare, 40. mister ship\ This misuse of words
misled by Marlowe, who was fond of is a stock device of Shakespeare’s to
making people preternaturally stupid at make his clowns amusing, and we have
the fatal moment, makes Tamora rather the final development of the idea in
too dense in the Revenge scenes, just Mrs. Malaprop.

as he makes the two Andronici who 42. God and Saint Stephen'] In those
fall into the pit too mentally benumbed comic relief pieces Shakespeare is play-
and helpless. ing, as we would say, to the gallery, as

37. Thy life-blood on V] I can make he would say, to the groundlings, and

no sense out of the usual reading “ out ” uses those absurdly anachronistic ex-
here, and prefer, unsatisfactory as it is, pressions to amuse them by making the
to read “thy life-blood on’t.” This clown familiar and intelligible to them,
means, I take it, “ Your life itself is at while at the same time the more
stake and is as good as lost ; if Aaron cultivated part of his audience would
now be wise.” be entertained by the brazen absurdity

38. anchor] ship. By a very favourite of putting such expressions into the

“ figure of speech ” (synecdoche) with mouth of a Roman peasant. It may
Shakespeare the part is used for the also be pointed out that the device of
whole, just as we use “sail** for the covered basket with birds, etc., in
“vessel,” “foot** for “footmen.** it is a favourite one with Shake-

40. Kfa, forsooth] One of the stock speare. Cf. Romeo and Juliet^ Anthony
objections to Shakespeare’s authorship and Cleopatra^ etc.
of Titus is that there is no comic relief. 42, 43. good den] good evening.

sc. IV.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

99

Tam. Come, sirrah, you must be hanged.

Clo. Hanged ! By ’r lady, then I have brought up a

neck to a fair end. \Exit, guarded.

Sat. Despiteful and intolerable wrongs ! 50

Shall I endure this monstrous villany ?

I know from whence this same device proceeds.

May this be borne? As if his traitorous sons.

That died by law for murder of our brother,

Have by my means been butcher'd wrongfully ! 55

Go, drag the villain hither by the hair ;

Nor age nor honour shall shape privilege.

For this proud mock I '11 be thy slaughterman ;

Sly frantic wretch, that holp'st to make me great.

In hope thyself should govern Rome and me. 60

Enter ^MlLlUvS.

What news with thee, iEmilius?

^mil. Arm, my lords ! Rome never had more cause.

The Goths have gather'd head, and with a power
Of high-resolved men, bent to the spoil.

They hither march amain, under conduct 65

Of Lucius, son to old Andronicus ;

Who threats, in course of this revenge, to do
As much as ever Coriolanus did.

57. shape privilege^ i.e. form a form of the originally strong verb
ground for exemption from punishment. * * help. ”

Shape, which is the same word as the 6o. In hope thyself] I am afraid
German to make,” was used Saturninus is right, as I point out in

by Shakespeare in the sense of “ form,” my Introduction.

“mould,” and even “create.” See 62. Arm ^ my lords !] If we read this
Schmidt. line with a pause after the exclamation

58. executioner, slayer, it scans quite well.

as in Henry V. III. iii. 41 ; Cymbeline^ 65. conduct] pronounced conduct.

V. iii. 48, etc. 68. Coriolanus] It is at any rate

59. > 4 i?i^V/]helpedst. Old and correct worthy of remark that the subject of

100

TITUS ANDRONICUS [activ.

Sat. Is war-like Lucius general of the Goths ?

These tidings nip me, and I hang the head 70

As flowers with frost or grass beat down with
storms.

Ay, now begin our sorrows to approach :

Tis he the common people love so much ;

Myself hath often heard them say,

When I have walked like a private man, 7 5

That Lucius' banishment was wrongfully,

And they have wish'd that Lucius were their emperor.
Tam. Why should you fear ? is not your city strong ?

Sat. Ay, but the citizens favour Lucius,

And will revolt from me to succour him. 80

Tam, King, be thy thoughts imperious, like thy name.

Is the sun dimm'd, that gnats do fly in it ?

The eagle suffers little birds to sing.

And is not careful what they mean thereby,

Knowing that with the shadow of his wings 8 5

He can at pleasure stint their melody ;

Even so may’st thou the giddy men of Rome.

Then cheer thy spirit ; for know, thou emperor,

I will enchant the old Andronicus

With words more sweet, and yet more dangerous, 90

Than baits to fish, or honey-stalks to sheep,

Whenas the one is wounded with the bait,

Shakespeare’s other great Roman play
is here mentioned.

69. Is war-hke Lucius.^ etc.'\ Here
again we see the necessity for some
interval of time not only for Lucius’
journey — army-raising — but on account
of the line Myself hath often heard
them say.” But see Introduction.

81. King^ be thy thoughts^ etc.]

Tamora, with all her faults, has the
quality of a certain greatness of spirit,
and her speech rises almost to sublimity
here.

91. honey -stalks^ clover flowers (
folium repens) which when they are
charged with honey are too greedily
eaten by sheep or cattle, who even die
from the effects. Nares.

sc IV.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

101

The other rotted with delicious feed.

Sat, But he will not entreat his son for us.

Tam. If Tamora entreat him, then he will : 95

For I can smooth and fill his aged ear
With golden promises, that, were his heart
Almost impregnable^ his old ears deaf.

Yet should both ear and heart obey my tongue.

[To ,/^mi/ms.] Go thou before, be our ambassador : 100
Say that the emperor requests a parley
Of war-like Lucius, and appoint the meeting
Even at his father’s house, the old Andronicus.

Sat. w^milius, do this message honourably :

And if he stand on hostage for his safety, 105

Bid him demand what pledge will please him
best.

JEmiL Your bidding shall I do effectually. [Exit,

Tam. Now will I to that old Andronicus,

And temper him with all the art I have.

To pluck proud Lucius from the war-like Goths. 1 10
And now, sweet emperor, be blithe again.

And bury all thy fear in my devices.

Sat. Then go successantly, and plead to him. [Exeunt.

95. If Tamora entreaty etc.] With
true Shakespearian irony Tamora is
made the victim of the “defect of her
quality,” her over-confidence in her
own wit.

105. on hostage] i. e. demand hostages.

1 1 3. successantly] Both F i and Q i
have this curious coinage, which seems
to be a Latin present-participle from
some imaginary verb successare. It
obviously means succeedingly, i.e.
successfully.

102

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

ACT V

SCENE 1 . — Plains near Rome.

Enter LUCIUS and an army of Goths^ with drum
and colours.

Luc. Approved warriors, and my faithful friends,

I have received letters from great Rome,

Which signify what hate they bear their emperor,

And how desirous of our sight they are.

Therefore, great lords, be, as your titles witness, 5
Imperious, and impatient of your wrongs ;

And wherein Rome hath done you any scath,

Let him make treble satisfaction.

First Goth. Brave slip, sprung from the great Andronicus,
Whose name was once our terror, now our comfort ; i o
Whose high exploits and honourable deeds
Ingrateful Rome requites with foul contempt.

Be bold in us : we 'll follow where thou lead'st,

Like stinging bees in hottest summer's day

Led by their master to the flower'd fields, i 5

colours] Both Q i and F i have
“ soldiers.”

1. Approved] proved, tried, experi-
enced.

2. letters] letter, as Shakespeare
seems to use it, as he does many other
words, in the strictly classical rather
the modern sense.

6. Imperious] I follow Q i in putting
a comma after this word.

7. scath] Modern English, “scathe.”
Cf. German, Schade, which is used, as
Chaucer uses scathe, in the sense of pity.
“ She was somedel deaf and that was
scathe,” Canterbury Tales, Prologue,
446.

8. him] i.e. Rome personified in the
masculine, or meaning the Emperor,
as it was a common practice of Shake-
speare’s to use “ France,” “Denmark,”
etc., in that sense.

9. slip] in the gardener’s sense of a
“cutting.”

12. Ingrateful] Mr. Craig writes me
that Shakespeare uses this form twice
as often as “ungrateful.”

15. Led by their master] I am in-
debted to the same gentleman for the
following note, which serves to elucidate
this passage : — “ Bees used to be borne
down a river in a barge through the
flowers, and as the barge sunk in the

TITUS ANDRONICUS

103

sc. I.]

And be avenged on cursed Tamora.

Goths. And, as he saith, so say we all with him.
Luc. I humbly thank him, and I thank you all.
But who comes here, led by a lusty Goth ?

Enter a Gothy leading Aaron, with his Child
in his arms.

Second Goth. Renowned Lucius, from our troops I stray'd 20
To gaze upon a ruinous monastery ;

And as I earnestly did fix mine eye
Upon the wasted building, suddenly
I heard a child cry underneath a wall.

I made unto the noise; when soon I heard 25

The crying babe controlled with this discourse :

** Peace, tawny slave, half me and half thy dam 1
Did not thy hue bewray whose brat thou art,

Had nature lent thee but thy mothers look.

Villain, thou might’st have been an emperor : 30

But where the bull and cow are both milk-white^

They never do beget a coal-black calf.

Peace, villain, peace ! ” even thus he rates the babe,

“ For I must bear thee to a trusty Goth;

water the quantity of honey they
gathered was indicated.”

16. cursed Tamora] Why the Goths
should be so easily roused against
Tamora one hardly sees at this point,
Unless it is understood, as mentioned,
in earlier versions of the play, that she
had poisoned her husband on Aaion’s
account.

21. monastery] Another anachron-
ism, but Shakespeare is persistently
careless on such points. But as we
do not know in the least the date
of the play’s historic action, the ana-

chronism may be the other way on in
making Titus and the other Romans
still pagans.

26. controlVd] managed, soothed.

27. tawny slave] Shakespeare was
evidently determined to emphasise this
ruffianly tenderness, as we may call it, of
Aaron’s to his child. To my thinking
there are few things in Shakespeare's
works more masterly or more character-
istic of his genius than these extra-
ordinary monologues — one is tempted to
say conversations — of Aaron to his child.
See Introduction, p. lx.

104

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

Who, when he knows thou art the empress’ babe, 35
Will hold thee dearly for thy mother’s sake.”

With this, my weapon drawn, I rush’d upon him.
Surpris’d him suddenly, and brought him hither.

To use as you think needful of the man.

Luc, O worthy Goth, this is the incarnate devil 40

That robb’d Andronicus of his good hand :

This is the pearl that pleas’d your empress’ eye.

And here ’s the base fruit of his burning lust.

Say, wall-eyed slave, whither would’st thou convey
This growing image of thy fiend-like face? 45

Why dost not speak? What! deaf? not a word?

A halter, soldiers ! hang him on this tree.

And by his side his fruit of bastardy.

Aar. Touch not the boy ; he is of royal blood.

Luc. Too like the sire for ever being good. 50

First hang the child, that he may see it sprawl ;

A sight to vex the father’s soul withal.

Get me a ladder I

[A ladder brought, which Aaron is made

to ascend.

37. my weapon drawn] Latin abla- blank and white-looking by reason of
tive absolute ; another sign to the the loss or growing- over of the coloured
classical attainments of this writer, and part of the eye — the iris. In a negro’s
making for and not, as ignorantly sup- eye, whether by reason of contrast to
posed, against Shakespeare’s author- his skin and dark iris or because the
ship. For, apart from other considera- white part of his eye is really larger
tions, Mr. Churton Collins maintains than in the white races, the white of
{Studies in Shakespeare) Shakespeare’s the eye shows very conspicuously ;
intimate knowledge of the Greek hence the appropriateness of the term.
Tragedies either in the original or in The word itself is derived from the
Latin versions. Icelandic, i e. Old Norse {Grieb-Schroer

42. pearl] alluding to the proverb Dictionary). King John, IV. iii. 49.
“A black man is a pearl in a fair 49. 7 'ouch not the boy] There is
woman’s eye.” Malone. See Introduc- wonderful dignity and pathos in this
tion, p. xlvi ; Two Gentlemen, v. ii. 12. line, and indeed in all Aaron’s conduct
44. wall-eyed] a term applied to with respect to his child,
horses whose eyes by disease become 53. Get me a ladder] assigned to

sc. I-l
Aar.

TITUS ANDRONICUS

105

Lucius, save the child ;

And bear it from me to the empress.

If thou do this, I ’ll show thee wondrous things 55
That highly may advantage thee to hear :

If thou wilt not, befall what may befall,

I ’ll speak no more but “ Vengeance rot you all ! ”

Luc. Say on ; an if it please me which thou speak’st,

Thy child shall live, and I will see it nourish’d. 60
Aar. An if it please thee ! why, assure thee, Lucius,

’Twill vex thy soul to hear what I shall speak ;

For I must talk of murders, rapes, and massacres.

Acts of black night, abominable deeds,

Complots of mischief, treason, villanies, 65

Ruthful to hear, yet piteously perform’d :

And this shall all be buried in my death.

Unless thou swear to me my child shall live.

Luc. Tell on thy mind ; I say thy child shall live.

Aar. Swear that he shall, and then I will begin. TO

I^uc. Who should I swear by ? thou believ’st no god :

That granted, how canst thou believe an oath ?

Aar. What if I do not? as, indeed, I do not;

Yet, for I know thou art religious,

And hast a thing within thee called conscience, 75
With twenty popish tricks and ceremonies,

Aaron in F i and Q i, but obviously compassion. Schmidt. See Lucrece,
spoken by Lucius. 681, etc.

63. For / must talk^ etc."] This might 71. thou believ'st no god'\ This author
form a fitting description of the makes his villain an atheist, whereas
“ Tragedy of Blood ” dramas so popular Marlowe and others themselves gave
then. See Introduction, p. Ixxxv, etc. expression to sentiments regarded as
66 . Ruthful^ pitiful — quite a Shake- atheistical. Shakespeare never does,
spearian word. See Richard III. iv. 76. popish tricks] Another anachron-
iii. 5 ; Troilus and Cressida^ v. iii. ism for which Shakespeare must be held
48. responsible ; for, however little or much

66 . piteousfy] i.e. so as to excite he wrote of this play, he stood godfather,

106

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

Which I have seen thee careful to observe,

Therefore I urge thy oath ; [Aside] for that I know
An idiot holds his bauble for a god,

And keeps the oath which by that god he swears, 8o
To that I '11 urge him : [A/c?ud] therefore thou shalt
vow

By that same god, what god soe'er it be,

That thou ador'st and hast in reverence,

To save my boy, to nourish and bring him up ;

Or else I will discover nought to thee. 8$

Luc. Even by my god I swear to thee I will.

Aar. First know thou, I begot him on the empress.

Luc. O most insatiate and luxurious woman !

Aar. Tut ! Lucius, this was but a deed of charity

To that which thou shalt hear of me anon. 90

'Twas her two sons that murder’d Bassianus ;

They cut thy sister’s tongue and ravish’d her.

And cut her hands and trimm’d her as thou saw’st.
Luc. O detestable villain ! call’st thou that trimming ?

Aar. Why, she was wash’d, and cut, and trimm’d, and
’twas 9 5

Trim sport for them that had the doing of it.

if not father, to it, and could easily have of God in reality resemble ourselves,
removed these flaws, some of which So a fool’s god is little better than a
may have been actors’ gag to raise a bauble.

smile or draw a cheer from the 8o. Lucius being a Roman

audience. probably beheved in more than one

78. urge thy oathi insist on your god.
swearing. 88. luxurious] lustful, and has always

78. for that^ etc.] to “urge him” is this sense in Shakespeare. Much Ado^
obviously an aside, though hitherto not iv. i. 42, etc.

so printed, and may be another hit at 93. trimmed] Aaron having secured
Catnolic image-worship. his child’s life becomes reckless, and

79. bauble^ etc.] i.e. a fool who takes malignant pleasure in Lucius’
carries a bauble will make a god of it. horror and distress. He probably uses
I have heard it said in the pulpit, and “trim ” in a yet more offensive sense
with much truth, that our conceptions than we know.

sc. I ] TITUS ANDRONICUS 107

Luc, O barbarous, beastly villains, like thyself!

Aar, Indeed, I was their tutor to instruct them.

That codding spirit had they from their mother,

As sure a card as ever won the set ; i oo

That bloody mind, I think, they learned of me.

As true a dog as ever fought at head.

Well, let my deeds be witness of my worth.

I train'd thy brethren to that guileful hole

Where the dead corpse of Bassianus lay; 105

I wrote the letter that thy father found.

And hid the gold within the letter mention'd.
Confederate with the queen and her two sons :

And what not done, that thou hast cause to rue.
Wherein I had no stroke of mischief in it? 1 10

I play'd the cheater for thy father's hand.

And, when I had it, drew myself apart.

And almost broke my heart with extreme laughter.

I pry'd me through the crevice of a wall

When, for his hand, he had his two sons' heads ; 115

Beheld his tears, and laugh'd so heartily.

That both mine eyes were rainy like to his :

And when I told the empress of this sport.

She swooned almost at my pleasing tale,

99. codding lustful, lecherous.

100. As sure a card~\ i.e, a card
certain to win the trick, referring to
Tamora, for whose wit Aaron had the
greatest admiration. Antony , iv. xiv.
19 *

100. sef\ trick or “hand” at cards.

102. As true a dog\ “An allusion
to bull ‘dogs, whose generosity and
courage are always shown by meeting
the bull in front, and seizing his nose.*^
Johnson.

104. train'd'] guided, directed, as we
still say of a cannon, or perhaps allured,
decoyed, in the sense in which birds are
caught by means of grain or crumbs
which leads them into the trap. Mac-
beth, IV. hi. 1 1 8.

109. And what not done] what was
not done.

1 1 9. swooned] i.e. for pleasure and
malicious mirth. F i and Q i , “ sounded ”
for “swounded.” I retain the modern
form of the word.

108

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

And for my tidings gave me twenty kisses. 120

First Goth, What ! canst thou say all this, and never blush ?
Aar. Ay, like a black dog, as the saying is,

Luc. Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds ?

Aar. Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.

Even now I curse the day, and yet, I think, 125

Few come within the compass of my curse.

Wherein I did not some notorious ill :

As kill a man, or else devise his death ;

Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it ;

Accuse some innocent, and forswear myself; 130
Set deadly enmity between two friends ;

Make poor men’s cattle break their necks ;

Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,

And bid the owners quench them with their tears.

Oft have I digg’d up dead men from their graves, 1 3 5
And set them upright at their dear friends’ doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot ;

And on their skins, as on the bark of trees.

Have with my knife carved in Roman letters.

Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.” 1 40
Tut ! I have done a thousand dreadful things

122. like a black do^ “ to blush like
a black dog,” according to Ray, is a
proverbial expression. Nares quotes
it from WithciVs Dictionary^ ed. 1634,
p. 557. A black dog was of course
the usual form taken by familiar evil
spirits, as in Faust.

124. Ay^ that / had not done^ etc.]
From this point Aaron degenerates into
the stage-villain of Marlowe and others.
See Jew of Malta^ ii. ii., and Introduc-
tion.

132. Make poor men's cattle] This
line is a foot short. Malone weakly

conjectures “and die.” “Fall and
break ” would be better. But there are
a good many instances of this metrical
shortage. See Abbott, par. 505.

139. Roman letters] He refers ob-
viously to things he has done since
coming to Rome. Another instance of
Shakespeare’s supreme contempt of
consistency in matters relating to time.
See Introduction, p. Ixxix. As a matter
of fact, the later Goths used Roman
characters, but earlier, as their first
writings "were on beechwood, their char-
acters were probably Runic.

SC.I.] TITUS ANDRONICUS 109

As willingly as one would kill a fly,

And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.

Luc. Bring down the devil, for he must not die 145

So sweet a death as hanging presently.

Aar. If there be devils, would I were a devil.

To live and burn in everlasting fire.

So I might have your company in hell.

But to torment you with my bitter tongue! 150

Luc. Sirs, stop his mouth, and let him speak no more.

Enter a Goth.

Goth. My lord, there is a messenger from Rome
Desires to be admitted to your presence.

Luc. Let him come near.

Enter ^Emilius.

Welcome, ^Emilius 1 what ^s the news from Rome ? 155
Lord Lucius, and you princes of the Goths,

The Roman emperor greets you all by me ;

And, for he understands you are in arms.

He craves a j)arley at your father's house.

Willing you to demand your hostages, 160

And they shall be immediately deliver'd.

First Goth. What says our general ? .

Luc. iEmilius, let the emperor give his pledges

145. Bring down the devil\ As 147. If there be devils'] This is the
Steevens says, Aaron was, for the sort of bombast into which Shakespeare
edification of the audience, already was led by the — in this case — bad ex>
mounted on the ladder ready to be ample of Marlowe.

hanged. 160. IVilling] being willing you

146. presently] immediately, as should, etc.
usually in Shakespeare.

110

TITUS ANDRONICUS

[act V.

Unto my father and my uncle Marcus,

And we will come. March away. [Exeunt. 165

SCENE II. — Rome. Before Tituses House.

Enter Tamora, Demetrius, and Chiron, disguised.

Tam. Thus, in this strange and sad habiliment,

I will encounter with Andronicus,

And say I am Revenge, sent from below
To join with him and right his heinous wrongs ;
Knock at his study, where they say he keeps, 5

To ruminate strange plots of dire revenge ;

Tell him, Revenge is come to join with him,

And work confusion on his enemies. [They knock.

Enter Titus, above .

Tit. Who doth molest my contemplation ?

Is it your trick to make me ope the door, i o

That so my sad dec rees may fly away,

And all my study be to no effect ?

You are deceiv’d ; for what I mean to do.

See here, in bloody lines I have set down ;

165. And we will comey ele.] Like trivance of Tamora is certainly a weak
several other lines in this scene, this is one, and unworthy of her lauded and
a broken or imperfect line. But as the boasted “wit.” Titus’ madness, like
same thing occurs in some of Shake- Hamlet’s, is meant to be partially, if
speare’s best plays, such as Macbethy it not entiiely, assumed, and the assump-
is not uncharacteristic of him, and is tion has deceived Tamora and lured
usually, as in this case, justified by a her into this feeble and ineffectual
natural break or pause in the speech. stratagem.

^ I. sad] probably gloomy, dark, sad-

:icene //. coloured.

I. Thus, in this, etc.] Tamora is dis- 5. keeps] lives, resides. Venus, 687,
guised as Revenge, and this recalls The and frequently elsewhere. Still used
Spanish Tragedy, where Revenge is one in my time in Cambridge in this
of the dramatis personce. This con- sense.

sc. II.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

111

And what is written shall be executed. i 5

Tam, Titus, I am come to talk with thee.

Tit, No, not a word ; how can I grace my talk.

Wanting a hand to give it action ?

Thou hast the odds of me ; therefore no more.

Tam, If thou didst know me, thou would’st talk with me. 20
Tit, I am not mad ; I know thee well enough :

Witness this wretched stump, these crimson lines ;
Witness these trenches made by grief and care ;
Witness the tiring day and heavy night ;

Witness all sorrow, that I know thee well 25

For our proud empress, mighty Tamora.

Is not thy coming for my other hand ?

Tam, Know, thou sad man, I am not Tamora;

She is thy enemy, and I thy friend :

I am Revenge, sent from the infernal kingdom, 30
To ease the gnawing vulture of thy mind.

By working wreakful vengeance on thy foes.

22. these crwison lines'] F l and Q i
have witness these,” etc., F i making
two broken lines of one line in Q i. I
think we may safely delete the second
“witness,” which not only spoils the
blank verse but also the balanced form
of the four lines beginning “ Witness.”

28. Know, thou sad man] It must be
confessed it is difficult to have patience
with this scene, which, like that in
which the brothers fall into the pit, is
a painful example of the “improbable
possible.” This structural weakness in
the action makes me doubt Shake-
speare’s authorship more than anything
else ; but it must be remembered that
it was his first, or one of his first
attempts at tragedy, and that he prob-
ably had not yet confidence enough to
depart from the original story as he
found it. The ballad, which probably,
as Percy maintains, preceded the play.

has this incident, and comments on its
weakness. “I fed their foolish veins
(= humours) a certaine space,” says
Titus, who IS the speaker throughout.
The dramatist, whoever he was, sup-
posing he found such a plot ready to
his hand, would be in a dilemma, as he
must either take the incident as it stood
or completely change it. The mature
Shakespeare would probably have done
the latter, but the tyro could not ven-
ture on it.

31. gnawing vulture] This figure is
taken probably from the Prometheus
story, and is copied by Gray in his
Ode on a distant Prospect of Eton
College, “vultures of the Mind.”

32. wreakful] vengeful. Ttmon, iv.
iii. 229. Wreak is used by Shake-
speare both as noun and verb, as in
Coriolanus, iv. v. 91, and Romeo, ill.
V. 102.

112

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

Come down and welcome me to this world’s light ;
Confer with me of murder and of death.

There ’s not a hollow cave or lurking-place, 3 5

No vast obscurity or misty vale,

Where bloody murder or detested rape
Can couch for fear, but I will find them out ;

And in their ears tell them my dreadful name,
Revenge, which makes the foul offender quake. 40
Tit. Art thou Revenge ? and art thou sent to me,

To be a torment to mine enemies?

Tam. I am ; therefore come down, and welcome me.

Tit. Do me some service ere I come to thee.

Lo, by thy side where Rape and Murder stands ; 45

Now give some surance that thou art Revenge :

Stab them, or tear them on thy chariot-wheels,

And then I ’ll come and be thy waggoner.

And whirl along with thee about the globe.

Provide two proper palfreys, black as jet, 50

To hale thy vengeful waggon swift aw^ay.

And find out murderers in their guilty caves :

And when thy car is loaden with their heads,

I will dismount, and by the waggon-wheel

Trot like a servile footman all day long, 55

Even from Hyperion’s rising in the east

36. odscurt^j/] obscure place. This is hunter. So “ palfrey ” is distinguished
the figure of speech called synecdoche, from the charger used in battle,
by which an abstract noun is used for a 55. footman] The great men of
concrete, and, as I have already pointed Shakespeare’s day had runners in livery
out, is a very favourite figure with to clear the way before them and help
Shakespeare. their heavy chariots out of the ruts of

46. surance] assurance ; not found the bad roads,
elsewhere in Shakespeare. 56. Hyperion] the old sun-god under

50. palfreys] generally used for a the Saturnian reign. See Keats’
handsome riding-horse, what we would Hyperion. The mere use of this name
now call a hack, as distinguished from a instead of Apollo is a proof of an

sc. II.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

113

Until his very downfall in the sea:

And day by day I 'll do this heavy task,

So thou destroy Rapine and Murder there.

Tam, These are my ministers, and come with me. 6o
Tit, Are these thy ministers ? what are they call'd ?

Tam, Rapine and Murder; therefore called so,

'Cause they take vengeance of such kind of men.

Tit, Good Lord, how like the empress' sons they are,

And you the empress ! but we worldly men 65

Have miserable, mad, mistaking eyes.

0 sweet Revenge 1 now do I come to thee ;

And, if one arm’s embracement will content thee,

1 will embrace thee in it by and by. {Exit above.

Tam, This closing with him fits his lunacy. 70

Whate'er I forge to feed his brain-sick fits.

Do you uphold and maintain in your speeches.

For now he firmly takes me for Revenge ;

And, being credulous in this mad thought,

I 'll make him send for Lucius his son ; 75

And, whilst I at a banquet hold him sure,

I 'll find some cunning practice out of hand

acquaintance with Greek as well as
Roman mythology.

59. Rapine\ Steevens objects to the
word “rapine” being used as equivalent
to “rape.” But when we consider the
close connection of the words in mean-
ing and derivation, I think his objections
distinctly pedantic. “ Rape ” is a par-
ticular act, and thus not well fitted for
personification. Rapine is merely a
more general term, for m those days at
any rate, as with the Turks now, rape
would invariably accompany lapinc.

61. Are these'\ F i and Q i have
“are them”; F 2, “they.” See
Abbott, par. 214.

3

65. worldly ^ etc.'\ We have here a
hint of Shakespeare's mature philosophy,
as developed in Lear and the Tempest^
of the deceptiveness and instability of
this passing show, which is only seen
in Its true light by “ God’s spies,”

V. iii. 17.

71. forgel invent. As Venus ^ 729
and 804, and elsewhere in Shake-
speare.

71. brain-sick'] mad. As in Lu-
creccf 175, and elsewhere in Shake-
speare.

77. practice] stratagem. Measure for
Measure^ V. i. 107, etc.

77. out of hand] on the spur of the

114

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

To scatter and disperse the giddy Goths,

Or, at the least, make them his enemies.

See, here he comes, and I must ply my theme. 8o

Enter Titus.

Tit Long have I been forlorn, and all for thee :

Welcome, dread Fury, to my woeful house:

Rapine and Murder, you are welcome too.

How like the empress and her sons you are !

Well are you fitted had you but a Moor: 85

Could not all hell afford you such a devil ?

For well I wot the empress never wags
But in her company there is a Moor ;

And would you represent our queen aright.

It were convenient you had such a devil, 90

But welcome as you are. What shall we do ?

Tam, What would’st thou have us do, Andronicus ?

Dem, Show me a murderer, I *11 deal with him.

Chi, Show me a villain that hath done a rape.

And I am sent to be reveng’d on him. 95

Tam, Show me a thousand that have done thee wrong,

And I will be revenged on them all.

Tit, Look round about the wicked streets of Rome,

And when thou find’st a man that *s like thyself,

Good Murder, stab him ; he *s a murderer. 1 00

Go thou with him ; and when it is thy hap
To find another that is like to thee.

Good Rapine, stab him ; he *s a ravisher.

moment, immediately. Nares q^uotes here is distinctly Shakespearian. See
from The Fiyar and the Boy ^ “Come, Tempest^ i. ii. 147.
tell me out of hand.” 87. wags\ i.e. stirs, goes anywhere ;

8 $, Well are you, ete.] The grammar capable here also of an obscene sense.

sc. n.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

115

Go thou with them ; and in the emperor’s court
There is a queen attended by a Moor; 105

Well may’st thou know her by thine own proportion,
For up and down she doth resemble thee :

I pray thee, do on them some violent death;

They have been violent to me and mine.

Tam» Well hast thou lesson’d us ; this shall we do. no
But would it please thee, good Andronicus,

To send for Lucius, thy thrice- valiant son.

Who leads towards Rome a band of war-like Goths,
And bid him come and banquet at thy house :

When he is here, even at thy solemn feast, 1 1 5

I will bring in the empress and her sons,

The emperor himself, and all thy foes.

And at thy mercy shall they stoop and kneel,

And on them shalt thou ease thy angry heart.

What says Andronicus to this device ? 120

Tit. Marcus, my brother ! ’tis sad Titus calls.

Enter MARCUS.

Go, gentle Marcus, to thy nephew Lucius ;

Thou shalt inquire him out among the Goths :

Bid him repair to me, and bring with him

Some of the chiefest princes of the Goths ; 125

Bid him encamp his soldiers where they are :

107. up and dawn] completely, ex-
actly. Two GenthfueUy ii. iii. 34.

108. do] that is, commit, execute,
no. Well hast thoti] Tam ora, like an

over-eager chess-playei, is so occupied
with her own “ practices” that she fails
to see that Titus is playing with her all
the time. Or is her apparent stupidity
meant to be that infatuation which

sometimes seizes people as they near a
fatal crisis ?

no. lessoned] taught. Shakespeare
is fond of forming words like this from
nouns. See Abbott, par. 294, who has
missed “ lesson’d.”

126. Bid him encamp] This seems
an error of judgment on Titus’ part,
but is said to put Tamora off her guard.

116

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

Tell him, the emperor and the empress too
Feast at my house, and he shall feast with them.

This do thou for my love ; and so let him,

As he regards his aged father's life. 130

Marc, This will I do, and soon return again.

Tam, Now will I hence about thy business.

And take my ministers along with me.

Tit, Nay, nay, let Rape and Murder stay with me ;

Or else I 'll call my brother back again, 135

And cleave to no revenge but Lucius.

Tam, [Aside to her sons^ What say you, boys ? will you
abide with him,

Whiles I go tell my lord the emperor
How I have govern'd our determin’d jest ?

Yield to his humour, smooth and speak him fair, 140
And tarry with him till I turn again.

Tit, [Aside,] I know them all, though they suppose me mad.
And will o’erreach them in their own devices ;

A pair of cursed hell-hounds and their dam.

Dem, Madam, depart at pleasure; leave us here. 145

Tam, Farewell, Andronicus : Revenge now goes
To lay a complot to betray thy foes.

Tit, I know thou dost ; and, sweet Revenge, farewell.

[Exit T amor a,

Chi, Tell us, old man, how shall we be employ'd?

Tit, Tut! I have work enough for you to do. 150

Publius, come hither, Caius, and Valentine !

136. And cleave^ etc,'\ refers to his slight pause after boys. I cannot con-
embracing Tamora in her character of ceive boys being a dissyllable.

Revenge. 147. complot] This word occurs twice

137. What say you, boys] This line before. See previous note,
reads perfectly well when read with a

sc. n.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

117

Enter PuBLIUS and Others.

Pub. What is your will ?

Tit. Know you these two?

Pub. The empress’ sons

I take them, Chiron and Demetrius. i $ 5

Tit. Fie, Publius, fie ! thou art too much deceiv’d ;

The one is Murder, Rape is the other’s name ;

And therefore bind them, gentle Publius ;

Caius, and Valentine, lay hands on them.

Oft have you heard me wish for such an hour, 1 60
And now I find it : therefore bind them sure.

And stop their mouths if they begin to cry. \Exit.

l^PubliuSy etc.., lay hold on Chiron and

Demetrius.

Chi. Villains, forbear ! we are the empress’ sons.

Pub. And therefore do we what we are commanded.

Stop close their mouths, let them not speak a
word. 165

Is he sure bound ? look that you bind them fast.

Re-enter Titus, with Lavinia ; she bearing a
basin^ and he a knife.

Tit. Come, come, Lavinia ; look, thy foes are bound.

158. And fAere/orf bind, etc.] A great of four, if so minded, could cut the
deal of absolute nonsense has been throat of a person bound hand and foot,
written on the improbability of an old still more a powerful old man like
man like Titus, deprived of one hand, Titus with his rt^kt hand free,
along with the maimed Lavinia, being 167. Come, come, etc.] There is no
able to cut the throats of Chiron and use denying the gruesomeness of this
Demetrius. This passage, which has and the following scenes ; but this
been curiously disregarded, shows that gruesomeness is no proof, hardly an
the youths were “securely bound and argument, against Shakespeare’s author-
gagged,” and that Titus had plenty of ship. Shakespeare soared above the
help at hand, in fact present. A child “Tragedy of Blood” school, not by

118

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

Sirs, stop their mouths, let them not speak to me.

But let them hear what fearful words I utter.

O villains, Chiron and Demetrius ! 170

Here stands the spring whom you have stain'd with mud,
This goodly summer with your winter mix'd.

You kill’d her husband, and for that vile fault
Two of her brothers were condemn'd to death.

My hand cut off and made a merry jest : 175

Both her sweet hands, her tongue, and that more dear
Than hands or tongue, her spotless chastity,

Inhuman traitors, you constrain'd and forc'd.

What would you say if I should let you speak ?
Villains, for shame you could not beg for grace. 1 80
Hark ! wretches, how I mean to martyr you.

This one hand yet is left to cut your throats.

Whilst that Lavinia 'tween her stumps doth hold
The basin that receives your guilty blood.

You know your mother means to feast with me, 185
And calls herself Revenge, and thinks me mad.

Hark ! villains, I will grind your bones to dust.

And with your blood and it I 'll make a paste ;

And of the paste a coffin I will rear,

And make two jpasties of your shameful heads ; 1 90

And bid that strumpet, your unhallow’d dam,

excising the horrors from his plots, bare details, is only fit for the Police
but by treating them in so noble and News. In Lear the tragedy is so ruth-
elevated a manner that we forget the lessly complete that even Shakespeare’s
physical horrors in the awe and pity immediate successors dared not play it
with which his marvellous handling of as written.

his themes inspires us. Macbeth and 172. goodly summer'] Cf. Richard
Lear, not to speak of Richard JJI,, III, r. i. 2, “ glorious summer.”
are as much “tragedies of blood” as 189. coffin] the raised crust of a pie
any ever written. Apart from the or other piece of pastry. Nares. See
trecUtnent Macbeth, the story of a also “custard-comn,” Taming of the
treacherous and clumsy murder, in its Shrew, iv. iii. 82.

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

119

Like to the earth swallow her own increase.

This is the feast that I have bid her to,

And this the banquet she shall surfeit on ;

For worse than Philomel you us’d my daughter, 195
And worse than Progne I will be reveng’d.

And now prepare your throats. Lavinia, come,

[He cuts their throats.

Receive the blood : and when that they are dead,

Let me go grind their bones to powder small,

And with this hateful liquor temper it; 200

And in that paste let their vile heads be bak’d.

Come, come, be every one officious

To make this banquet, which I wish may prove

More stern and bloody than the Centaurs’ feast.

So, now bring them in, for I ’ll play the cook, 205
And see them ready ’gainst their mother comes.

[Exeunt^ hearing the dead bodies.

SCENE III. — The Same, Court of Tituds House,

A banquet set out.

Enter LUCIUS, Marcus, and Goths ; with Aaron,
prisoner.

Luc. Uncle Marcus, since 'tis my father’s mind
That I repair to Rome, I am content.

192. swallow her own increase"] This 200. temper it] mix it, as of
may either refer to the phenomenon of mortar.

earthquakes, or may refer to a variant 202. officious] here apparently in a
of the legend of the early Greek gods, favourable sense = zealous. Cf. PVintef^s
the elemented gods, Coelus and Terra. Tale, ii. iii. 159.

Saturn we know devoured his own chil- 204. Centaurs* feast] The quarrel of
dren, till his wife Rhea cheated him with the Centaurs and Lapithse at the
stones. “ Increase,” in this sense, is a marriage of Hippodamia and Pirithous.
very favourite word with Shakespeare.

120 TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

First Goth, And ours with thine, befall what fortune
will.

Luc, Good uncle, take you in this barbarous Moor,

This ravenous tiger, this accursed devil; 5

Let him receive no sustenance, fetter him,

Till he be brought unto the empress’ face.

For testimony of her foul proceedings :

And see tKe ambush of our friends be strong ;

I fear the emperor means no good to us. 10

Aar, Some devil whisper curses in mine ear.

And prompt me, that my tongue may utter forth
The venomous malice of my swelling heart !

Luc, Away, inhuman dog ! unhallow’d slave !

Sirs, help our uncle to convey him in. 1 5

\Exeunt Gothsy with Aaron, Trumpets sound.
The trumpets show the emperor is at hand.

Enter Saturninus and Tamora, with .^MILIUS,
Senators y Tribunes y and Others,

Sat, What ! hath the firmament more suns than one ?

Luc, What boots it thee to call thyself a sun ?

Marc, Rome’s emperor, and nephew, break the parle ;

These quarrels must be quietly debated. 20

The feast is ready which the careful Titus
Hath ordain’d to an honourable end.

For peace, for love, for league, and good to Rome :

9. And sec the ambush'] This repairs
the apparent mistake of Titus’ before
alluded to.

18. to call thyself a sun] Probably a
play on words, alluding to the fact that
Saturninus was Emperor in virtue of
being his father’s son, and for no merit
or capacity of his own.

19. break the parle] break off the
parley. Johnson says it means “begin
the parley.” This is clearly wrong, as
Marcus, seeing the parley has begun,
unsuspiciously invites them to the feast.

22. honourable end] Marcus had of
course no idea of what had occurred in
his absence.

sc. III.]

TITUS ANDRONICUS

121

Please you, therefore, draw nigh, and take your places.
Sat, Marcus, we will. \Hautboys sound, 25

Enter Titus, dressed like a cook, Lavinia, veiled, young
Lucius, and Others, Titus places the dishes on
the table.

Tit, Welcome, my gracious lord ; welcome, dread queen ;
Welcome, ye war-like Goths ; welcome, Lucius ;

And welcome, all. Although the cheer be poor,

'Twill fill your stomachs ; please you eat of it.

Sat, Why art thou thus attir'd, Andronicus ? 30

Tit, Because I would be sure to have all well,

To entertain your highness, and your empress.

Tam, We are beholding to you, good Andronicus.

Tit, An if your highness knew my heart, you were.

My lord the emperor, resolve me this : 3 5

Was it well done of rash Virginius

To slay his daughter with his own right hand.

Because she was enforc'd, stain'd, and deflower’d ?

Sat, It was, Andronicus.

Tit, Your reason, mighty lord? 40

Sat, Because the girl should not survive her shame.

And by her presence still renew his sorrows.

Tit, A reason mighty, strong, and effectual ;

A pattern, precedent, and lively warrant,

36. Was it well done\ The author 41. Me ^V/] If my suggestion

of this play knows classic story too well were adopted of omitting, “ Because
not to know the difference between the she was, etc.,” this line may be taken
two cases, but he regards them as to mean merely that Virginia could
similar, as Virginia would certainly not survive the shame which certainly
have become the victim of lust just as awaited her, had her father not killed
Lavinia did. her. The expression below, “ a

38. Because she was, etc,] This line thousand times more cause,” shows
seems to me like the interpolation of an quite clearly that the author knew the
ignorant scribe or actor. great difference between the two cases.

122 TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

For me, most wretched, to perform the like. 45

Die, die, Lavinia, and thy shame with thee ;

And with thy shame thy father’s sorrow die !

[Kills Lavinia.

Sat. What hast thou done, unnatural and unkind ?

Tit, Kill’d her, for whom my tears have made me blind.

I am as woeful as Virginius was, 50

And have a thousand times more cause than he
To do this outrage : and it now is done.

Sat. What ! was she ravish’d ? tell who did the deed.

Tit, Will ’t please you eat ? will ’t please your highness feed ?
Tam. Why hast thou slain thine only daughter thus ? 55

Tit. Not I ; ’twas Chiron and Demetrius :

They ravish’d her, and cut away her tongue ;

And they, ’twas they, that did her all this wrong.

Sat. Go fetch them hither to us presently.

Tit. Why, there they are both, baked in that pie ; 60

Whereof their mother daintily hath fed.

Eating the flesh that she herself hath bred.

’Tis true, ’tis true ; witness my knife’s sharp point.

[Kills Tamora.

Sat. Die, frantic wretch, for this accursed deed !

[Kills Titus.

Luc. Can the son’s eye behold his father bleed? 65

There ’s meed for meed, death for a deadly deed !

[Kills Saturninus. A great tumult. The people
in confusion disperse. Marcus^ Lucius^ and
their partisans^ go up into the balcony.

66. meed far meed] measure for later work, when he wanted to em-
measure, probably a proverbial ex- phasise or clinch a point or mark the
pression. The rh)mied lines as here termination of an important speech or
were used by Shakespeare even in his dialogue.

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

123

Marc, You sad-fac’d men, people and sons of Rome,

By uproar sever'd, like a flight of fowl
Scatter'd by winds and high tempestuous gusts,

O ! let me teach you how to knit again 70

This scatter’d corn into one mutual sheaf.

These broken limbs again into one body ;

Lest Rome herself be bane unto herself.

And she whom mighty kingdoms court'sy to,

Like a forlorn and desperate castaway, 75

Do shameful execution on herself.

But if my frosty signs and chaps of age,

Grave witnesses of true experience,

Cannot induce you to attend my words,

\To Lucius^ Speak, Rome's dear friend, as erst our
ancestor. 80

When with his solemn tongue he did discourse
To love-sick Dido's sad attending ear
The story of that baleful burning night
When subtle Greeks surpris'd King Priam's Troy ;

Tell us what Sinon hath bewitch'd our ears, 85

Or who hath brought the fatal engine in

That gives our Troy, OUf Rome, the “ci\Hl^ wound.

My heart is not compact of flint nor steel.

Nor can I utter all our bitter grief.

68. flight of fowVX See Midsummer-
Nights Dream, ill. ii. 105-107.

70. knit'\ unite, as often in Shake-
speare.

71. viutual'\ common, as in Venus,
1018 ; Two Gentlemen, v. iv. 173. So
Pickens had good authority for “ mutual
friend.”

73. Lest Rome'] In F i and Q i let.”
In F I this speech is given to a Goth, in
Q I to a Roman lord, but Malone in this

instance is right in attributing the whole
to Marcus. This speech recalls some
of Friar Laurence’s in Romeo, III. iii.

77. chaps'] wrinkles or cracks, as we
say chapped hands. See Sonnet, Ixii.
10.

83. baleful burning] Shakespeare
satirises this excessive alliteration in
Midsummer- Nigh f s Dream,

85. Sinon] This author is steeped in
mythologic lore. Lucrece, 1521, 1529.

124

TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

But floods of tears will drown my oratory, 90

And break my utterance, even in the time
When it should move you to attend me most.

Lending your kind commiseration.

Here is a captain, let him tell the tale ;

Your hearts will throb and weep to hear him speak. 95
Ltic, Then, noble auditory, be it known to you.

That cursed Chiron and Demetrius

Were they that murdered our emperor’s brother ;

And they it was that ravished our sister.

For their fell faults our brothers were beheaded, 100
Our father’s tears despis’d, and basely cozen’d
Of that true hand that fought Rome’s quarrel
out,

And sent her enemies unto the grave :

Lastly, myself unkindly banished,

The gates shut on me, and turn’d weeping out, 105
To beg relief among Rome’s enemies ;

Who drown’d their enmity in my true tears.

And op’d their arms to embrace me as a friend :

I am the turn’d forth, be it known to you,

That have preserv’d her welfare in my blood, 1 1 o
And from her bosom took the enemy’s point.
Sheathing the steel in my adventurous body.

Alas! you know I am no vaunter, I ;

My scars can witness, dumb although they are.

That my report is just and full of truth. 1 1 S

But soft I methinks I do digress too much,

96. auditory\ probably a trisyllable sair^ or the Greek as a mere

here = auditry. intensive.

100. felll cruel. A.-S. feL Strat- loi. cozen\l'\ cheated. As Merry
mann. In Scotch “fell” is used like IVwes, iv. ii. 180, etc.

sc. III.] TITUS ANDRONICUS

125

Citing my worthless praise : O ! pardon me ;

For when no friends are by, men praise themselves.
Marc. Now is my turn to speak. Behold this child ;

Of this was Tamora delivered, 1 20

The issue of an irreligious Moor,

Chief architect and plotter of these woes.

The villain is alive in Titus* house.

Damn’d as he is, to witness this is true.

Now judge what cause had Titus to revenge 125
These wrongs, unspeakable, past patience,

Or more than any living man could bear.

Now you have heard the truth, what say you, Romans ?
Have we done aught amiss, show us wherein,

And, from the place where you behold us now, 130

The poor remainder of Andronici

Will hand in hand all headlong cast us down.

And on the ragged stones beat forth our brains,

And make a mutual closure of our house.

Speak, Romans, speak ! and if you say we shall, 135
Lo ! hand in hand, Lucius and I will fall.

^mil. Come, come, thou reverend man of Rome,

And bring our emperor gently in thy hand,

Lucius our emperor ; for well I know
The common voice do cry it shall be so. 140

Marc. Lucius, all hail ! Rome’s royal emperor !

1 1 8. For when no friendi^y e/c.] i'll, of Andronici] Perhaps “th*”
Lucius is of course uncertain how the has dropped out here.

Romans will receive him coming at the 1 34. mutual] common. See above,
head of a Gothic army. 134. closure] end.

124. DamFd as he is] Theobald 140. The common voice] the unanim-
substitutes “ damn’d,” i.e. condemned, ous people ; hence plural verb.

for the “ and ” of F i and Q i. 141. Lucius y all hail!] Steevens says

125. cause] F i and Q I have this line should be given to the Romans

“course.” F 4 has “ cause.” who were present. But we may under-

126 TITUS ANDRONICUS [actv.

[To Attendants^ Go, go into old Titus’ sorrowful house,
And hither hale that misbelieving Moor,

To be adjudg’d some direful slaughtering death,

As punishment for his most wicked life. 145

[Exeunt Attendants,

Lucius, Marcus, and the Others descend.

All, Lucius, all hail ! Rome’s gracious governor !

Luc, Thanks, gentle Romans : may I govern so,

To heal Rome’s harms, and wipe away her woe !

But, gentle people, give me aim awhile.

For nature puts me to a heavy task. 150

Stand all aloof ; but, uncle, draw you near.

To shed obsequious tears upon this trunk.

O ! take this warm kiss on thy pale cold lips,

[Kisses Titus,

These sorrowful drops upon thy blood-stain’d face.

The last true duties of thy noble son. 155

Marc, Tear for tear, and loving kiss for kiss.

Thy brother Marcus tenders on thy lips :

O ! were the sum of these that I should pay
Countless and infinite, yet would I pay them.

Luc, Come hither, boy ; come, come, and learn of us 1 60

stand that the company signified assent, 149. give tne aitfil “give room and
and that Marcus, as in the opening of scope to my thoughts.” Schmidt,
the play, was their spokesman. 152. obsequious tears'] tears of devo-

143. hale] haul. Kluge derives tion and affection, or such tears as are

“hale” from a supposed A. fitting a funeral. Shakespeare never
“ haill ” from A.-S. geholien. German, uses the word in the modern derogatory
holen (English Etymology). sense.

144. direful slaughtering] killing in 1 55. noble son] Surely Lucius would
a cruel manner. See Othello^ v. ii. 332 : not call himself noble ! might not this

“ For this slave (lago), line be said by Marcus? or noble may
If there be any cunning cruelty have meant merely “ well-born,” being
That can torment him much, and Titus’ son.
hold him long,” etc.

sc. Ill] TITUS ANDRON ICUS

127

To melt in showers : thy grandsire lov^d thee well :
Many a time he danc’d thee on his knee,

Sung thee asleep, his loving breast thy pillow ;

Many a matter hath he told to thee,

Meet and agreeing with thine infancy; 165

In that respect, then, like a loving child,

Shed yet some small drops from thy tender spring,
Because kind nature doth require it so :

Friends should associate friends in grief and woe.

Bid him farewell ; commit him to the grave; 170
Do him that kindness, and take leave of him.

Boy, O grandsire, grandsire ! even with all my heart
Would I were dead, so you did live again.

O lord ! I cannot speak to him for weeping ;

My tears will choke me if I ope my mouth. 175

Re-enter Attendants y with Aaron.

First Rom, You sad Andronici, have done with woes :

Give sentence on this execrable wretch.

That hath been breeder of these dire events.

Luc, Set him breast-deep in earth, and famish him ;

There let him stand, and rave, and cry for food : 1 80

If any one relieves or pities him,

For the offence he dies. This is our doom :

Some stay to see him fasten’d in the earth.

Aar, O ! why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb?

162. Many a tirne^ etc.'\ This touch- Crude as this may be, compared with
ing speech is thoioughly Shakespearian Shakespeare’s later work, it is by no
to my thinking. “ Meet ” = “ things means inconsistent with it. Shake-
meet.” speare does not make his worst char-

168. Because kind nature] ^Q^Romeo^ acters repent ; his Regans and Gonerils,

IV. V. 82, 83. his lago, even Macbeth and his wife,

169. associate] join. Romeo ^ v. ii. 6. cannot be said to repent. Edmund is,
184. O! why should wrath, etc,] I think, the only character in the

128

TITUS ANDRONICUS [act v. sc. m.

I am no baby, I, that with base prayers 185

I should repent the evils I have done.

Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did
Would I perform, if I might have my will :

If one good deed in all my life I did,

I do repent it from my very soul. 190

Luc, Some loving friends convey the emperor hence.

And give him burial in his father^s grave.

My father and Lavinia shall forthwith
Be closed in our household's monument
As for that heinous tiger, Tamora, 195

No funeral rite, nor man in mourning weeds.

No mournful bell shall ring her burial ;

But throw her forth to beasts and birds of prey.

Her life was beast-like, and devoid of pity ;

And, being so, shall have like want of pity. 200

See justice done on Aaron, that damn'd Moor,

By whom our heavy haps had their beginning :

Then, afterwards, to order well the state,

That like events may ne'er it ruinate, \Exeunt,

Tragedies^ who can be ranked as a understand some phrase like “ there shall
villain, who repents. In Shakespeare’s be,” or we might read “and for her,” etc.
comedies or romances the wrong-doers 198. But throw her forth, etr.] cf.
cannot be left without giving some Macbeth, ill. iv. 71, “ Our monu-
sign of grace. But when he gives us ments shall be the maws of kites. ”
the full grim truth of life in tragedy, 203. Then, afterwards^ The whole
he deals little in repentance. is elliptical, and we must understand

189. If one good deed] makes one some phrase here as “we must pro-
think on Satan’s “ Evil, be thou my ceed.”

good f Paradise Lost, iv. no. 204. rziinate] ruin. S Henry IV.

195. heinous] wicked, used usually v. 183 ; Lucrece, 944, and elsewhere,

by Shakespeare of deeds, as nowadays ; Bacon and Spenser also use the word,
here of a person. which hardly proves that either of them

196. No funeral rite] We must wrote this play.

Printed by Morrison and Cihb Limitei^, Edinlnit^h